Posted on 04/07/2014 3:16:51 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Accuracy varies significantly across major cable news outlets. All of them can take steps to improve their coverage of climate science.
To gauge how accurately these networks inform their audiences about climate change, UCS analyzed the networks' climate science coverage in 2013 and found that each network treated climate science very differently.
Fox News was the least accurate; 72 percent of its 2013 climate science-related segments contained misleading statements. CNN was in the middle, with about a third of segments featuring misleading statements. MSNBC was the most accurate, with only eight percent of segments containing misleading statements
* Mutual acceptance of the facts is a prerequisite to having a reasoned debate about how to respond to the risks scientists have uncovered related to climate change.
* Established climate science should always be portrayed accurately in the media and every cable news network has the opportunity to empower its viewers with accurate scientific information, even as its hosts, guests, and audiences express varying attitudes, beliefs, and values around questions of climate policy.
* Climate science can be complex and difficult to cover. Yet each of the major cable news networks, regardless of its overall performance, has shown that it can get the science right. Each can — and should — do more to achieve higher levels of accuracy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ucsusa.org ...
DISPARAGING CLIMATE SCIENCE In segments marked as “disparaging climate science” hosts or guests questioned the credibility of climate scientists or the study of climate science. In a few cases, for instance, hosts or guests accused scientists of manipulating climate data or the communication of climate information to the public. In other cases, hosts or guests suggested that the study of climate science itself was untrustworthy.
HOSTING MISLEADING DEBATES The presentation of a debate can imply to viewers that both sides have considerable merit or, in the case of climate science, are grounded in empirical fact. Segments marked as “misleading debates” included segments in which hosts or guests argued about established science on climate change, such as whether or not climate change is occurring or largely human-induced, and segments in which inaccurate views on established science were presented in recorded news segments.
Public debates about science are not necessarily misleading. Some debates could have been coded as “accurate” if, for example, guests had exclusively debated not established science but rather emerging science, such as the frequency of tornado formation under a changing climate. However, no such segments were identified in the dataset.
Weathermen are right only 47% of the time. The farmers almanac is correct about 50% of the time. The “climatologists” that leave out the effects of the sun and clouds will be significantly more wrong than any.
Actually being told you are wrong by “the Union of Concerned Scientists” is quite a compliment.
That outfit has been around for decades. Funded by “progressive” foundation money.. I remember their commie assault on nukes (powerplants AND weapons) back in the 70s. I’m surprised they didn’t implode when the old Soviet Union blew up.
(Not even a hundred - it's soooo lame.)
I’d believe these “concerned scientists” slightly more than I’d believe a guest on “Coast to Coast”.
Only slightly...as in a smidgen.
Think about it...supposed “scientists” defending faked data, piss poor physics, and models that have proven consistently more incorrect than an MSNBC program.
Science has been driven back to the dark ages by the hijacking of scientific institutions, methods and beliefs by the lunatic left. Science, properly applied, is self correcting. That which is bogus does not survive and that which points in a direction supported by facts flourishes. But science is not being properly applied, has become debased and has lost all credibility. MSNBC my ass.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
"The UCS was the fourth-largest recipient of foundation grants for climate studies in the period 2000–2002, a fourth of its $24M grant income being for that purpose." -- George C. Marshall Institute
The UCS continues to receive foundation grants for climate studies, which seriously calls its scientific objectivity into question on climate related issues.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
They want to take away my SUV to save the sun.
You, sir, the are reason I am still a FR contributor and pay attention to what is said. Great revelations are much more rare these days, but all the more valuable as a result. UCS are pimping for dollars to fund their fraudulent enterprise and you have found them out. Huzzah!
Who gives a bleep what the union of confused scientologists sez? All you need to join is a credit card number.
The Old Farmer's Almanac has an 80% accuracy. They claim they don't use computer models, but "compare solar patterns and historical weather conditions with current solar activity." Maybe the AGW crowd should put away their computers and give this a try.
ping for a later read
a government idiot like Obama or a gov scientist cannot tell an individual conservative how to run his life better than he can much less run the millions of transactions of the free market (capitalism)
global warming is a hoax
their stupid climate science is ALL a fraud , fake , a hoax , all of it.
government is corrupt and never works
Any group that posts an idiotic statement such as,
“Mutual acceptance of the facts is a prerequisite to having a reasoned debate...” is not worth “debating” with.
If we are all sitting around in a mutual admiration society, group hug, Kumbaya circle, exactly what is there to debate?
That which the AGW folks label as “Facts” are more correctly classified as “conclusions”. Most of the time, the AGW conclusions are based on computer climate models, NOT facts.
The Union of Concerned Socialists includes very few climate scientists. There’s no reason to listen to them.
Union of Concerned Scientists is a left wing shill org.
democrats create a fake crisis to justify the existence of government
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.