Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:47 PM ET, 12/15/2010

Fox News on climate: Ignorant, manipulative -- or both?

By Stephen Stromberg

Media Matters says it has uncovered a directive that Bill Sammon, Fox News's Washington bureau chief, sent to the network's reporters, commanding them to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."

This reflects ignorance, ideological manipulation -- or both.

It would have been about as fair if Sammon had instructed Fox's reporters to "refrain from asserting that President Obama was born in America without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

Such notions? I'm an opinions journalist, so even at Fox, I might be allowed to say this: The world is currently warming. The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, etc. Thermometers say so. Plant characteristics and animal behaviors say so. The energy content of the oceans says so. Sinking islands say so. "The warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported over the summer. "If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups."

Serious climate-science skeptics, and there are a few, don't really contest the idea that global warming is happening. More coherent criticisms of the commonly accepted temperature record focus on scientists' estimates of much earlier periods and how they compare to the climate change we're seeing now. Sammon, though, makes even the most obvious climate science seem like it might be the sort of superstition that would compel your grandmother to keep a ball of cat fur in a leather glove under her holiday crèche. You know, just in case.

And what's the intensifying "debate" to which Sammon was referring? He wrote his directive last December, during the worst of the so-called Climategate e-mail scandal, which showed that a few climate scientists took some criticism a little too seriously in their private correspondence. But, ultimately, multiple independent review panels found that it didn't demonstrate any real wrongdoing -- and it certainly said little about the actual science.

I also wonder if Sammon would insist his reporters take such care in reporting on climate skeptics' claims about the Medieval Warm Period that they care so much about.

Whether by design or not, Sammon's directive implies a strategy to sneak some of the most improbable climate know-nothingism into supposedly objective newscasts. It used to be that opinions writers constructed their own straw men. Now Fox News is saving everyone else the trouble.

By Stephen Stromberg  | December 15, 2010; 2:47 PM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: King of p-Op 2010: Antoine Dodson
Next: DADT repeal: Over to the Senate

Comments

I think this guy should also tell him employees to refrain from asserting that Jesus is the Son of God and was born of the Virgin Mary without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theory is based upon data that critics have called into question.

Posted by: duhneese | December 15, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Memo to Fox News: Refrain from reporting that tax cuts for the wealthy help the economy without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based on data that critics have called into question.

Posted by: leftcoaster | December 15, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say: “You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.” Fox News feels, and has always felt, that they can have their own set of facts.

Posted by: topperale | December 15, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Global warming alarmist theory is nonsense created to keep money flowing into universities and corporate coffers of companies supplying green technology. Some of us, like myself, are old enough to remember the Global Cooling hysteria of the seventies that touted a new ice age on the front pages of Time and Newsweek Magazines.

Posted by: jkk1943 | December 15, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"It would have been about as fair if Sammon had instructed Fox's reporters to "refrain from asserting that President Obama was born in America without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.""

What nonsense. Not only do liberals utterly reject scientific skepticism, they utterly reject logic.

Thank goodness the Post added Stromberg. We really needed another mindless partisan liberal who is incapable of rational thought.

Posted by: bobmoses | December 15, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

These rantings about Fox News being "Faux News" and the continuing campaign coming from the left can only mean one thing: the people of this country are a bit more conservative than you think. I realize in a liberal utopia, the government takes care of you "cradle-to-grave."

No one uttered a word about bias when Ted Turner started CNN. But it's okay, Ted gives to the right groups. Somehow, Rupert Murdoch is the worst person in the world. He gives to evil Republicans and Democrats, too.

Look it up, folks. Do your own homework.

Posted by: taocpa | December 15, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Fox's cooking of the reality books is also a leading contributor to Global Warming, theoretically, of course...

Posted by: braultrl | December 15, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

JKK1943 posted, claiming he's old enough to remember other climate change events and thinks now as then, that it is all a fluke.
JKK1943, all I can say is that you are a nincompoop, all this time and you still haven't learned a damn thing. shameful

Posted by: richmonet | December 15, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I am astonished that Fox News is considered to be a news source at all. It makes little attempt to broadcast actual news of events that really happened and is merely a vehicle for lobbyists - overwhelmingly extreme conservatives. It is abusing its licence to use the airwaves but has become accountable to no one. It has become a soap opera/revivalist event with its actors masquarading as journalists. Turn it off!

Posted by: ianf46 | December 15, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Also, don't forget to "refrain from asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

Posted by: sux123 | December 15, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

your comments are reflect the problem perfectly. Temperatures have not gone up since 1998, that is fact. I do not know what it means but models are not facts and the models show we should still be increasing.

Posted by: DBTool | December 15, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Cry more?

How come in every article written by the Washington Post and the NY Times covering the recent Virginia court decision on the health care bill, immediately follows suit with a remark that the judge was appointed by Bush?

It's not an accident. All news media does this- including the Washington Post.

Posted by: moebius22 | December 15, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey I got an Idea! Lets see what an expert such as that known Right Wing Republican Denialist Phil Jones said when asked if there has been any statistically significant warming since 1995 by that far right news agency the BBC:

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

What? Phil Jones is not a right winger and the BBC is not a tool of Rupert Murdoch? How can this be? He just DENIED there was any statistically significant warming since 1995 and the BBC published it.

Hmm looks like that guy over at Fox News did the correct thing unlike the partisan Media Matters or the left leaning Washington Post commentator, but then again the guy from Fox was talking to journalists about NEWS articles not OPINION PIECES like this post here or the entire Media Matters organization. Yep can't let the facts get in the way of a bad try at a smear campaign.

Posted by: boballab | December 15, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

This entire discussion seems so silly in that even the very corrupt IPCC (mostly) dropped talking about global warming since the temperature of the earth started dropping after 1998. The most commonly used term is now “climate change.” This way whatever direction the much manipulated temperature recordings goes, members of the corrupt government and paid-off scientific establishment can blame carbon dioxide for the change. Maybe since most of the manipulators are men, men might better understand this whole man-caused (maybe that term is the problem with women) climate change fiasco is just a scam for leftists to obtain their dream of one-world government, huge increase in taxes (much more money for them to buy votes), and so these Marxists can control every phase of our lives.
I will give just one example (of thousands) of why this whole climate change discussion is a scam. The Earth’s temperature has changed .7° C over 150 year period (this is what the whole climate change scam is all about) well over a 1000 times over the last 100,000 years. All but the last change was before the hugely expanded use of fossil fuels.
We are now in one of the coldest periods in the history of our planet. The earth's climate always has changed and always will change whether humans exist on this planet or not.

Posted by: wearyoflies | December 15, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Cry more?

How come in every article written by the Washington Post and the NY Times covering the recent Virginia court decision on the health care bill, immediately follows suit with a remark that the judge was appointed by Bush?

It's not an accident. All news media does this- including the Washington Post.

Posted by: moebius22 "

And in the same story in the Post about the recent decision on the health care bill they also stated that the other two decisions that were handed down in other states over the same health care bill that did not overturn it involved judges appointed by Clinton.

Read much?

Posted by: duhneese | December 15, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Stromberg; all,

40 years ago, when i was in grad school, the same publications (THE NATION, MOTHER JONES, US NEWS & WORLD REPORT, TIME, ABC, CBS, NBC & other "mainstream" publications/channels) & "climate experts" were trumpeting DOOM, DOOM & more DOOM because we were to soon (NEWSWEEK said within 5 years!) experience "the worst ice-age in history" and that BILLIONS of dollars had to be spent immediately to "avert the catastrophe". =====> did i sleep through the "ice age".
(fwiw, the doom-sayers then had exactly the SAME sort of "evidence" as the doom-sayers have now. = NONE.)

tell me why (in 500 words or less) that we should believe "the experts", the press or anyone else, absent POSITIVE PROOF that there is any "manmade global warming".
(there is, of course, "global warming" - it's caused by the Sun & the cooling/warming cycles run about 30+ years each!)

imVho, there is NO actual evidence of any "man-caused climate change". - just lots of "spin", untested/untestable theories, opinions, supposition, KNOWING LIES & nothing more than that.

to all: as the old saying goes, "Fool me once it's your fault; fool me twice, it's my fault". = SORRY but i'm not buying into this particuliar theory and/or "pack of lies" until/unless there is INCONTESTABLE PROOF.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 15, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

No one uttered a word about bias when Ted Turner started CNN. But it's okay, Ted gives to the right groups. Somehow, Rupert Murdoch is the worst person in the world. He gives to evil Republicans and Democrats, too.

Look it up, folks. Do your own homework.

Posted by: taocpa

Really? When Turner started CNN back in 1980 was it a 24/7 propaganda operation for one particular political party? Did he have hosts praise the John Birchers, spout end of days rants or openly call for the murder of the Speaker of the House like Beck does? Did say, Bernie Kalb ever behave like a fool and refer to the president as a socialist and un-American. Were there bimbos like Grechen Carlson who took pride in their own ignorance. Hell, Freakin Crossfire with Buchannan (former Nixon, Reagan), Tom Braden (who was a former CIA agent)or Kinsley never stooped to Fox's low level. Even when Dobbs was on Turner's CNN he was fair.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | December 15, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

@boballab: As surveys of the scientific community verify, there is no genuine scientific controversy about whether climate change is happening. Virtually every major scientific organization on the planet (with the exception of the petroleum engineers group) has joined the consensus that it is a real and serious problem. You can nitpick about the precision of various statistical models all you want, but even if you discount all of them, there's ample observable evidence that the planet is warming, from the melting of the polar ice fields and rise of sea levels to the alteration of avian and aquatic migratory patterns. Neither is there really any significant disagreement among scientists about whether human activities are primarily responsible for what we are seeing. The significant points of contention among scientists 1)whether the IPCC's predictions are too conservative, and 2) whether it's feasible to stem the trend by reducing carbon emissions, or whether it's too late for that, which would mean that the focus should be on trying to cope with the likely consequences.

Posted by: pjkiger1 | December 15, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

What the dems and repubs refuse to acknowledge publicly is what they all know privately. Fox "news", is really just a forum for national republican media. They should be prosecuted for their obvious, but unreported campaign contributions to the republican party. Nobody, even they, believe their Orwellian tag line "fair and balanced, and unafraid".

Posted by: wildcat1 | December 15, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"I think this guy should also tell him employees to refrain from asserting that Jesus is the Son of God and was born of the Virgin Mary without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theory is based upon data that critics have called into question."

Well said!!!

Posted by: Chops2 | December 15, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

They should also caveat any news item which implies that the Earth/universe existed before 6004 BC--you know, areas such as geology or astronomy--by IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theory is based upon data that critics have called into question. And when it comes to biology/crime evidence based on DNA/medicine, all of which is based on evolution, the immediate caveat should be a foregone conclusion.

Posted by: FLTransplant | December 15, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Fox News slanted and biased? Surely, you can't be serious! Well, I am serious, and don't call me Shirley....

Posted by: marcb1 | December 15, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I can understand Fox's directive. There are definitely still kinks to work out with this newfangled thermometer thingies. And averaging? Complete voodoo!

Fox News has always sent directives down from the top to inform its on-air personalities how to address certain issues to make sure they lead their audience in the desired ideological direction. This isn't really surprising. While the causes of global warming are debatable, the fact that it's happening really isn't, but Fox knows who their base is and what they want to hear, and they deliver.

Posted by: Chip_M | December 15, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Every story on climate change issues by this paper always parrots of the oft quoted remark that the majority of scientists believe in climate change.

REPOST for people like duhneese who selectively read comments.

Posted by moebius22:
How come in every article written by the Washington Post and the NY Times covering the recent Virginia court decision on the health care bill, "IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS" suit with a remark that the judge was appointed by Bush?

Now a quote from the NY Times backing up what I said.

"It was no great surprise that a federal district judge in Virginia, nominated by President George W. Bush, declared a provision of the health care reform law unconstitutional."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14tue2.html?scp=3&sq=health%20insurance%20ruling&st=cse

Posted by: moebius22 | December 15, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, but say what you will...Fox has a huge audience and makes tons of money...even liberals watch it (just like I listen the left wingers on NPR and their slant on the news--partially paid for by tax dollars). The Washington Post newspaper for all intents and purposes is bankrupt...it wouldn't publish tomorrow without the rest of the corporation subsidizing it.

Ask yourself why liberalists like Media Matters chase so hard against Fox...probably jealous of their success. Plus, they have the best looking journalists on the planet:)


Posted by: dcmowbray1 | December 15, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Since when do we rely on a consensus of the views of scientists to decide the truth of an issue. Two centuries ago, the consensus of scientific views was that germs did not cause disease, a view that even Florence Nightingale embraced. Scientists faced the same dissent arguing mosquitoes caused malaria, or that serious diseases like yellow fever or polio could be dealt with through sanitation. So now, according to Media Matters, we are all supposed to accept the views of an "overwhelming, vast majority of scientists who have studied climate change," that global warming is a fact. The real fact is that scientists cannot prove it, and rely on bludgeoning the public into believing their wierd theories so they can get more research grants to further study the phenomenon. I am no defender of Fox, but they are very right on this issue. It is not ignorance.

Posted by: edwardallen54 | December 15, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

@pjkiger1

Nice Appeal to Authority, too bad it is not based in reality.

First the so called consensus of the IPCC is according to Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia's CRU and Tyndall Center on Climate change disingenuous:

"Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection
and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf

Second even NASA is backing away from the CO2 driven climate meme:
"The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth's climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world's climate system and makes possible life as we know it."

" According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling -- perhaps the next ice age."

"Other important forcings of Earth's climate system include such "variables" as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool."
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/

Now why are they backing away? Just take a look at Figure SPM 2 here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

They have Low scientific understanding for how Cloud Albedo effect, Solar Irradiance and Stratospheric Water vapor from CH4 works, all of which as shown can far exceed CO2's effect. Matter of fact empirical evidence from recent studies show that clouds have large NEGATIVE Feedbacks see here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

Maybe you should do some actual research in the scientific documents instead of regurgitating some talking points from Al Gore. You probably still think the film "An Inconvenient Truth" showed factual evidence:
"Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

Posted by: boballab | December 15, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Anybody who can read a thermometer has to conclude that the planet has been getting warmer, and that the trend stretches back more than just a few decades. Those aren't theories -- they're facts -- and Sammons' memo, as presented in the article, is just stupid.

What's not stupid, though, is to question whether human activity is causing this rise in temperature. It seems highly likely to me that human activity is at least contributing to global warming and could even be the primary cause, but if somebody can offer compelling evidence that what we're observing as global climate change is part of a natural cycle, then I'm all ears. I haven't seen that compelling evidence yet, but you never know. I'm ready to label global warming deniers stupid, but not yet ready to conclude I know for a fact why the mercury keeps rising.

Sammons' memo implies (actually states) that global warming is a "theory," which is idiotic. If he'd just mentioned human activity as the supposed cause, though, he might have been able to come up with something worth saying. So I have to wonder -- is Sammons guilty of ignorance and ideological manipulation, or merely of writing a poorly worded email? (For a journalist, the latter might be the greater transgression.) Maybe he just goofed and didn't say what he meant to say? If so, it might be more appropriate to point out Fox's Washington bureau chief writes like an amateur than to accuse him of malicious distortion of the truth.

On the other hand, if the folks at Fox News really don't comprehend the nature of the controversy they're determined to stoke, well ... why am I surprised?

Posted by: weanderson | December 15, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I am old enough to remember the "global cooling" stories in Time, Newsweek etc, and I was knowledgeable enough to recognize that this hardly represented the predominant view among scientists. Instead, the media picked up on a "hot" story that could sell papers and magazines and ran with it. Most scientists, even in the 1970s, believed that the real trend was a warming, not a cooling of the earth. Just because the media made much of this for a brief period doesn't discredit scientists (those elitist liberals!)nor does it have anything to say about the almost complete consensus today among scientists about global warming.
As for the idea that global warming is being promoted by corporations with a vested interest in green technology etc, you might look at which corporations have been most active in supporting studies that "refute" global warming: energy companies. Yes, I guess all those advertisements against cigarettes were just part ploys by the chewing gum industry to discourage smoking so people would chew more gum!
Fox is not being fair and balanced with its invocation of critics' views. It's just catering to the biases of its audience. Why do you think that Fox viewers, even after the White House conceded that Saddam was not involved in 9/11, persisted in believing he was? Fox made sure not to correct what was a useful falsehood. That's a habit it can't break.

Posted by: gratianus | December 15, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

bobmoses,taocpa,jkk1943: Liars always defend their own.

Faux News is slime; snake slime.

Posted by: taroya | December 15, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for straightening me out on these issues Mr. Stromberg. You see, I have foolishly been under the impression that some of the skeptics arguments against global warming, rising sea levels, and human causes actually had merit. But now I see that you, with your INSIDE TRACK ON TRUTH, know once and for all what is really going on. Thanks so much.

By the way, with your INSIDE TRACK ON TRUTH would you be so kind as to answer two more questions that have been troubling me?

Is there a God?

What will the temperature be on the mall at noon next Monday?

Thank you so much. I am ignorant and manipulated no more.

Posted by: jimhill1 | December 15, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"your comments are reflect the problem perfectly. Temperatures have not gone up since 1998"

Somehow I think I'll take the word of The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over your say so.

Interesting how the right wing posters here do not want to address the fact that FoxNews executives have been caught red handed manipulating coverage. Interesting and sad.

I agree that there are responsible critics of global warming theories who only argue about whether man is responsible. I disagree, but at least there's a grasp of reality and valid argument. Denying that we are warming is nonsense.

Posted by: Alex3 | December 15, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Read the comments from the conservatives on this article. They attack everyone and everything except the facts. The planet is warming while their brains are cooling. Maybe that's why they deny facts (and remember, facts are OBSERVATIONS - that's the basis of the word factual).

Posted by: fmschiav | December 15, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

@weanderson

I'll take your word that you want some evidence and that you are ready to have your assumptions you just listed overturned.

During the instrumental period there has been three distinct warming periods with cooling periods in between. Those periods are: 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-98/present. Phil Jones the head of the CRU which makes the Land portion of the HadCrut3 dataset used by the IPCC had this to say about all those warming periods:

"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
(The word Yes stand sfor statistical significance)

To put it basically that shoots the crap out of the Meme that the current warming is unprecedented. As shown the warming from 1975 to now is of the same rate as between 1860-1880.

Now in between those periods the temps fell in a cyclical pattern. This pattern roughly parallels natural cycles such as the PDO and AMO.

Now as to why the overall average temperature is higher today then in 1860 is because we are coming out of the "Little Ice Age". This is another cyclical pattern that can be clearly seen in the Ice Core records such as the GISP record. Here is a link to a graph made from the data of the GISP 2 ice core:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a71a24a7970b-pi

As can be seen temperatures during this Interglacial have been much warmer then today. You can access the actual data from NOAA here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

So as shown todays temperature is not unprecedented from past temperatures naturally occurring, not is the rate of change unprecedented even in the last 150 years from natural rates of change.

Posted by: boballab | December 15, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

It wouldn't surprise me if they found out that Media Matters made up the whole e-mail or at the least took the comment out of context. They are a tool of the Soros/Demo/Socialist party.

Posted by: twoeagle | December 15, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I see Fox News mentioned many times in these comments. There is no such thing as News on Fox. There is propaganda that is spewed 24/7. If you enjoy hearing lies about today's events by all means tune in Fox just don't call it news

Posted by: fish4 | December 15, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

@jimhill1

Re your final line, you may have spoken too soon. Or perhaps... wishful thinking?

Posted by: Lemeritus | December 15, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

FOX: propaganda for idiots.

And no matter how often they are caught manipulating the truth, the stupid and willfully ignorant still believe.

Posted by: rapchat1 | December 15, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

@fmschiav

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

You state the conservatives attack everything but the facts, but in three different posts I have presented nothing but facts from the IPCC, NOAA, NASA and individual scientists.

What has the Liberals attacked?

"bobmoses,taocpa,jkk1943: Liars always defend their own.

Faux News is slime; snake slime.

Posted by: taroya | December 15, 2010 6:37 PM"

Yep nothing but showing facts there.

You just like all the others make statements without showing one piece of empirical evidence.

Posted by: boballab | December 15, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Both, they go together after all. Fox can pretty much wipe away any pretext of being other than a propaganda outlet for the irrational right.

Posted by: Nymous | December 15, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Cry more?

How come in every article written by the Washington Post and the NY Times covering the recent Virginia court decision on the health care bill, immediately follows suit with a remark that the judge was appointed by Bush?

It's not an accident. All news media does this- including the Washington Post.

Posted by: moebius22

And did FOX news also report that this judge owned a majority stake in a lobbiyist firm that lobbyed against the Health Care Bill.Why did he not recuse himself from this decision. Where are the ethics in this

Posted by: dgnunruh | December 15, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Red herrings dgnunruh?

Posted by: moebius22 | December 15, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Everyone knows Fox News is right wing propaganda. They are not so much against global warming existing by itself, but about it existing because that means industry will have to spend money to control emissions. What industry and big business have to spend to meet government requirements, that's what they have a problem with.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 15, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Everyone knows Fox News is right wing propaganda. They are not so much against global warming existing by itself, but about it existing because that means industry will have to spend money to control emissions. What industry and big business have to spend to meet government requirements, that's what they have a problem with.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | December 15, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

The innumerable errors, falsehoods, and lies that permeate the 'reporting' from Fox News does a great disservice to our nation. There really is nothing more to be said.

Posted by: wilsonjmichael | December 15, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Global warming, climate change or whatever the term of the day is a gigantic fraud. It is designed to extract money from richer, more developed countries and redistribute it to undeveloped countries through various means of taxation. Without the redistribution of wealth component global warming or climate change ceases to exist. Only gullible fools fall for this hoax and there most definitely is no shortage of them.

Posted by: tmonahan54 | December 15, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

@bobalab

All you say is likely true, and you've likely detected I'm no expert on the subject, but I gotta say I see a trend here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Here's the source:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Posted by: weanderson | December 15, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

You "skeptics" will have me convinced when one of you finally manage to publish a peer reviewed paper (Nature magazine is good) proving that industrial pollution has no effect on the earth's climate.

Posted by: leftcoaster | December 15, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Fox News knows who their audience is. Ignorant people who know nothing about science, who know nothing about the very religion they claim to believe in, who are easily manipulated by anyone who knows how to push their few, simple-minded buttons. The Land of the Free, sure. We are the Land of the Stupid.

Posted by: DaveHarris | December 15, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Stromberg, if this is true, it would appear to me that Fox News was reporting the facts - not just listening to Al Gore and progressives out to scam us. Respected scientists have said the climate data was "fixed" and erroneous. Anyone with a brain would know man can not affect the climate. Without controls, industry can pollute the air, but this is a far cry from man made climate conditions or climate warming. The climate has been fluctuating for perhaps millions of years.

Why would a reporter with the WaPo even listen to Media Matters. Media Matters is financed by George Soros aka George Schwarta. This man with the "new world order" and his billions of dollars in too many schemes in the USA is not a man I would trust.

Posted by: annnort | December 15, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Looks to me like Fox was just trying to ensure fairness and accuracy. It would seem that their real error was failing to adhere to climate orthodoxy.

Posted by: rspound21 | December 15, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm really surprised at the number of adamant supporters of Fox News who truly believe the network is a "fair and balanced" news source. Some guy above even went so far as to say they have some of the best journalists on the planet. Wow. Even the journalists themselves clearly make many comments in a tongue in cheek manner. There's little hope for democracy in this country if people can be so gullible and ignorant.

Posted by: Menidia | December 15, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

What's the supposed motivation behind this giant conspiracy that the right claims underlies the climate change voodoo? Why did all these Democrats and scientists make up this big lie and force the world to become more efficient? Just to bring down America? Stick it to the old industry? What does Joe Scientist care about the oil industry? It's a lot cheaper to put gas into his car than lithium-ion batteries.

This isn't a conspiracy from the left. The conspiracy is coming from the right, as these leaked documents from fox news demonstrate. There's a whole lot of oil, coal and dirty electric companies that will lose when there's less demand for their products.

I ask the Post and their readers to just ignore fox. You're only encouraging them.

Posted by: Menidia | December 15, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

As a devout Republican and loyal Fox fan, I can assure you that no matter how incontrovertible the scientific evidence of man-made climate change becomes, our Party's position (and by default that of Fox News) will NEVER change: Global warming is a plot fabricated by communist liberal atheist fuzzy-minded one-worlders intent upon destroying our God-given Capitalist system.

Posted by: senbilboredux | December 15, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

SInce you write above about the Medieval warm period, can you tell us the temperatures during these years?
Of course, you cannot. We only have reliable temperature records going back a century. Before that it is all anecdotal. We have 19th Century hurricanes we know little about, for example, and we really don't know the expanse of the icefields in previous years.
So if the earth is warming, then compared to what? It looks to me as if we have long periods of cold temperatures, and long periods of warm. In the 17th Century, we see from art works that people were skating on the Thames in London, and building bonfires on the ice. Yet this river hasn't frozen over in more than a century. Whether this is because of global warming, or the effects of London's urban heat island, I don't know.
This is really not a new story. I have been waiting for Alexandria and Annapolis to sink underwater for the last 20 years. But the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River seem to have their same level as they had 200 years ago.
Finally, what bothers me is that there is a political goal amongst those pushing global warming. That is for Congress to pass an energy tax that will punish those of us who drive or use air conditioning and oil heat. These might be admirable goals, but I do not like the backdoor way this tax is being promoted by environmentalists as being necessary to save the planet.

Posted by: edwardallen54 | December 15, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

...and another thing.

Who cares whether global warming is happening or not? Our answer should be the same. Some of the world's worst dictators and terrorists are funded by the USA's addiction to oil. Pull the plug on them by turning to green energy.

Right now the Chinese are taking the lead on green technologies thanks to Republican foot dragging, obstructionism and misinformation. These Republicans are the same breed who claimed for decades that cigarettes weren't harmful so they could protect the tobacco industry. Now they're hurting our country's potential to improve employment and the trade deficit via the development of an entirely new green industry.

The villains here are the Republicans whose efforts are preventing job creation and propping up evil communist (China), socialist (Venezuela), fascist (Iran), terrorist (Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia) and dictatorial (Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, etc.) regimes.

Posted by: Menidia | December 15, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

A few rebuttals to edwardallen54 who seems ignorant to the science of climate change:

"SInce you write above about the Medieval warm period, can you tell us the temperatures during these years?"

- Yes. There are excellent scientific means of measuring historical temperature quite accurately via the ratio of isotopes trapped in various media.

"we really don't know the expanse of the icefields in previous years."

- Glaciers make very clear marks on the face of the earth that are easily recognized with minimal training.

"This is really not a new story. I have been waiting for Alexandria and Annapolis to sink underwater for the last 20 years. But the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River seem to have their same level as they had 200 years ago."

-No serious scientist ever predicted a sea level rise of the type that would put Alexandria or Annapolis under water by now. Sea level rise to date has been minimal, partly because much of the melting ice to date was already floating on the ocean. Also, the warming to date has been modest (but real). Global warming is expected to accelerate in the future for several reasons.

"Finally, what bothers me is that there is a political goal amongst those pushing global warming. That is for Congress to pass an energy tax that will punish those of us who drive or use air conditioning and oil heat. These might be admirable goals, but I do not like the backdoor way this tax is being promoted by environmentalists as being necessary to save the planet."

-I don't understand. Why is it an admirable goal to punish those who drive, or use air conditioning and oil heat?
although some would like better land use to maximize green space and wildlife habitat and minimize roads, that's not really going to happen with most proposals. People will move to electric vehicles or other renewable or highly efficient technology to heat their homes or get from place to place.

Posted by: Menidia | December 15, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Stromberg uses Media Matters in criticism of FoxNews?
Media Matters?
I'm shocked.

Posted by: slatt321 | December 15, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

And what's the intensifying "debate" to which Sammon was referring? He wrote his directive last December, during the worst of the so-called Climategate e-mail scandal, which showed that a few climate scientists took some criticism a little too seriously in their private correspondence.
==========================================

I think the author is taking the editor's note out of context. At the time, there was a question about the validity of the climate data. Whether liberals want to believe it or not, there was.

Imagine if liberal comments were taken out of context. Imagine the articles that could be written the liberal ignorance or ideological manipulation. But let's be honest, liberals are simply guilty of that everyday!

The liberal ignorance about how their policies have failed america. It is to the point that majority of americans feel we are on the wrong track. But let's not go into details, because the liberal continued attack on Republicans is simply an ideological manipulation of facts to support their flawed and misguided policies!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | December 15, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Classic Orwellian doublethink.

Posted by: pj5106 | December 16, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse

This is a great link:

http://bbprof.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/10-liberal-fallacies-part-ii/

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | December 16, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

The only one guilty of ignorance and ideological manipulation is Stephen Stromberg. Sammon was correct and Stromberg is wrong. The so called facts on global warning were proven to be a global farce.

Posted by: mlbduffy | December 16, 2010 2:06 AM | Report abuse

Regardless of whether one believes the science specifying the cause of climate change, observable weather over the past 50 years shows a dramatic change in the world's climate.

Posted by: header | December 16, 2010 2:14 AM | Report abuse

@Lemeritus:

Perish the politically incorrect thought. I am altogether as sincere in my faith in the infallibility of global warmists as Michael Mann and Phil Jones, to name but a couple.

Posted by: jimhill1 | December 16, 2010 3:15 AM | Report abuse

This "attack" opinion on Sammon and Fox News is pretty funny.
I am one of the millions of skeptics with regard to global warming. There are a lot of us who have done some individual research and didn't need any help from Fox News, thank you very much.

By glossing over a variety of implied obvious characteristics of global warming, there is a final judgment in this article that the climate-gate email scandal was found not guilty: "...ultimately, multiple independent review panels found that it didn't demonstrate any real wrongdoing."
Of course, yes, "independent reviews." Aren't they all?

I'm waiting for the time that well-known, reputable scientists with opposing points of view meet in to "debate" their "facts" for the edification of the masses.
Then let's see if any progress is made in understanding if there is or is not a legitimate basis for Al Gore's alarm. (Is Al still jet-setting around, using up energy in maintaining his mansions and, in deference to the environment, planting a tree or two?)

Posted by: pjcafe | December 16, 2010 3:28 AM | Report abuse

It is so freaking sick and twisted, bordering on evil how Orwellian you liberals are.


"Don't point out the truth! Don't point out the truth! If you do we will brand you as liars!"

And all of you just go along with it.

I suspect deep down, Hitler knew he was evil. That's one thing he has over you lot who demand that no one point out that some have evidence that the world isn't warming.

Posted by: shecallsmemoe | December 16, 2010 4:55 AM | Report abuse

Fox is to news what the national enquirer is to newspapers. It is aimed at a lowbrow audience and serious people have never paid any attention to it.

Posted by: lemondog | December 16, 2010 6:14 AM | Report abuse

"How come in every article written by the Washington Post and the NY Times covering the recent Virginia court decision on the health care bill, immediately follows suit with a remark that the judge was appointed by Bush?

It's not an accident. All news media does this- including the Washington Post."
=================================
_Every_ media outlet of whatever political bent includes a note on who appointed a federal judge when they render a decision on a politically sensitive case.

You're looking so hard for left wing media bias you see it everywhere.

Posted by: tunkefer | December 16, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Fox News tells its reporters to report that not everyone believes that Global Warming (re named Climate Change by the Environmentalist side because it goes down better with the public) is man made and suddenly it is "manipulating" the news?

I'm sorry. But there are "critics" who are scientists who don't believe everything that comes out of the mouths and writings of the supporters of Global Warming/Climate Change. So, I fail to see how Fox has done wrong in this.

Same with the Public Option - it is in fact a Government Option isn't it? Insurance Companies in an Exchange are ruled by the dictates of a Governmental Agency and the tax payers subsidize this Government Established Exchange. Again, it is the truth isn't it?

So the real issue here is that Fox is reporting the reality of what is occurring regarding these subjects.

Yet those who wish to see Fox News as a Right Wing Propaganda Machine pounce on these issues as if they are profound...they're not. They equal the left wing barrage of "President Palin" articles....used to scare Democrats into voting for the Democrats in 2012.......and nothing more.

Posted by: LMW6 | December 16, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

The world is flat. Accept it.

Posted by: jlatz1 | December 16, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

leftcoaster wrote: "You 'skeptics' will have me convinced when one of you finally manage to publish a peer reviewed paper (Nature magazine is good) proving that industrial pollution has no effect on the earth's climate."
======================================
Actually LC, as bad as pollution certainly is (no argument there), it has as much impact on our climate as the hot air coming out of your and other Global Warming Alarmists' mouths.

And will someone please explain to me why Stromberg is writing this trash during YET ANOTHER cold wave of 30 degrees less than normal temperatures in DC?!!! Strom, if you want to fan the flames of chicken little, you really ought to do it in the summer when we have an occasional heat wave.

Liberals. Please move to Europe where you can be among your own kind. We have little use for you here.

Posted by: bryanmcoleman | December 16, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Oh and LC, i forgot to mention, the burden of proof is on your side hoss. You show us how excess carbon dioxide spawns Global Warming. As far as we can tell, the trees and the plants haven't been complaining too much.

Posted by: bryanmcoleman | December 16, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone else notice how quiet Fox was during the past Summer when many areas in the North were feeling Record and near record heat waves. NOT one word related to Global Warming did they utter from their Mouths or Butts!

Posted by: ddoiron1 | December 16, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

The science-challanged Right never let facts and the scientific method get in the way. It's easier to just spout off without making any effort to fact check. Lazy.

Posted by: jckdoors | December 16, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Apropos of nothing, I'll have my insinuation without so much innuendo, thanks.

Posted by: almorganiv | December 16, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

We have made a mess of things economically and in our social programs by listening to the practitioners of two other psuedo-sciences - economics and sociology.

Believing that massive changes should be made to society based on the beliefs of those another group of people who only have correlations, incomplete models, and not a complete grasp of the entire workings of our climate system does not seem to make alot of sense. Especially when the "cure" is for we in the US to sacrifice our lifestyle and tax ourselves to give to the third world while China and India do not.

Posted by: mwoss | December 16, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

This conspiracy by our eco-nazis, commies, and government-paid drones is now 40 years old. It started in the 1970's with the global cooling scam; when that did not work (they wanted our disarmed bombers to spray polar ice with soot so that those new glaciers would not cruch the NY skyscrapers) they invented the global warming hoax in the 1990's (we will all be inundated by the rising seas); with the considerable cooling since they came up with the climate change flimflam in the 2000's (whatever happens we have to nationalize everything); and now we must deal with the cap & trade power grab (again, nationalize everything and put us all under the UN-sponsored world socialist government).

Posted by: jrc_mrc | December 16, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

AS far as I know, the only journalist that was caught red-handed falsifying information was Dan Rather, and it cost him his job....an icon of the left...

Posted by: magoo902 | December 16, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

@boballab:
"1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes"

So you agree that the world is warming and not calling the data into question. That's one step ahead of the FauxNews Propaganda Mill. Congratulations.

Now your next quote:
"To put it basically that shoots the crap out of the Meme that the current warming is unprecedented."

That's a strawman, nobody is contending that the warming is unprecedented. You and I know from scientists that the globe has warmed before.
The only thing that is unprecedented is it's cause: it's the first time humans are the root of the cause for the climate change.

FauxNews and their defenders like boballab are more and more starting to sound like Baghdad Bob. New and additional evidence is coming forward *on a daily basis* that Climate Change is real and is anthropogenic, and the deniers are still repeating debunked stories like "they claimed we would get cooling in the 70s".
Sorry guys, "they" did not claim that.

Posted by: wimprange | December 16, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

This is making a news story out of a non-story. Not ALL scientists believe in global warming; hundreds dispute what thousands of scientists call global warming or climate change. It's a small percentage, but in science it's significant enough to call the majority opinion into question.

That is a fact. And Fox News sides with those scientists who dispute the climate change claim, or at least the human significance of it, so it's natural for Fox to include in its reporting that this claim is called into question. Where is the news here? Bunch of liberals trying to make a news flash out of nothing.

By the way, isn't Greenland called Greenland because hundreds of years ago it was all green? Must've cooled off some to get that big-old glacier and all that snow up there.

I think the science of this is still unsettled and unresolved and that, unless you're a liberal wienie who just blindly believes everything that comes out of another liberal's mouth, we should embrace dispute on this important issue and welcome reasonable debate as to its validity. To do otherwise is very close-minded. I thought all liberals were full of love and very open-minded. Maybe not so much.

Posted by: JoeP55 | December 17, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

to all,

fwiw, i'm patiently waiting for "someone with a brain" AND some REAL knowledge of the THEORY of "manmade global warming" to answer my question that i posed earlier on this forum, so i'll repost it.:

"In 500 words or less, can you tell us WHY we laymen should believe in "manmade global warming" and/or spend even a dime of taxpayers money on that dubious theory, when essentially the SAME "facts" were used 40 years ago to predict "a new ice age"?"

until/unless i see something TRUTHFUL posted here that PROVES the theory, count me among "the manmade global warming skeptics" & spend NONE of my hard-earned money on this DIMocRAT/leftist BOONDOGGLE!

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | December 17, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company