Since when do news agencies and the internet have more credentials than real scientists and professors?

Question

How is it that so many people are calling climate change - not global warming - a hoax? Suddenly I'm hearing that the American news is saying it isn't real. Who is FOX and many other news agencies to be the judge of this? I don't understand how people are so callous. What is the problem with conservation and helping the environment? In the end it just ends up saving you money anyway. Please comment. If you leave an internet source be sure that it a site worth crediting.

Answer 1

Many people are simply ill informed of the facts, and the most vocal of them are often at work raising blood pressure on news channels. The union of concerned scientists has prepped many scientific and research papers on the subject, including one that delineates where the money is coming from to fund the activist groups who deny that global warming and climate change exists. Please note that many of the same "news" people received a great deal of cash from the tobacco lobby as well years ago, and for the same reasons-profits and preventing a whole sale change or squashing innovation for as long as possible. The poor part of this is that if the vocal minority is incorrect, they have just directly contributed to a horrific set of events in littoral regions across the globe, where most of the poorest people on earth reside.

Answer 2

Nothing wrong with conservation, I'm all for it. But AGW/Climate change [due to humans] is all bullshit.

Answer 3

Fox News is such a bunch of uninformed idiots:

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

"Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...

Who still watches Fox News?  Their ignorance is dangerousand their bias is malicious.  They should be jailed for perpetrating fraud to boost their ratings and ad revenue, as documented by the studies below.

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, documents how the media supports the false appearance of controversy on the topic of global warming:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05...

Creating controversy where science finds consensus

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

"A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling "both" sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias."

Media False Balancing Allowed Extreme Views to be Treated Same as Scientific Consensus

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Gl...

Answer 4

I am sure that the number of humans that populate this earth has made a huge impact upon resources. And there may be an impact upon the climate as well. But, I am more inclined to believe that the earth just goes through cycles. Maybe humans increase or decrease those cycles some. But, the earth will have more ice ages and more humid climates in the future.

With "end of days" types of movies showing the demise of civilization, public perceptions have shifted. It used to be nuclear war and before that dictatorships of one country taking control of the world. Today, it is massive flooding, increased weather cycles, and loss of our ice caps.

But, it is all a cycle. But people will take advantage of the weak minded whenever they can. For instance, last week we heard about a large mass of ice, the size of Manhatten, falling into the ocean in Antarctica. For years we have heard that Antactica is shrinking. Well, fact is that Antactica has had one of the coldest winters on record, the size of the continent is actually larger than it has been in decades, and The continent continues to grow despite large ice shelves shaving themselves off from the pack. As for the large ice shelf that collapsed last week. Well, it may be that global warming is not the cause as many green people would like for you to believe. It appears that there are volcanoes near that ice shelf that may have caused the collapse due to seismic activity and thermo waters from the volcanoes.

Oh and those poor polar bears that are suppose to be extinct in the coming years. Their populations have grown over the past two decades. Sure, in some areas, there may be a loss of bears for whatever reasons, but in other areas, these bears are prospering. One area under study saw the population grow from 5000 in the 1980's to now being in the range of 25,000.

Can we do better in saving resources and energy? Had humans destroyed the eco system in areas of this world. The answer has to be yes. There are "dead" rivers around the world unable to support plant and animal life. There are forests in Western America that are being choked out by smog. And there are people and corporations willing to rape the land and seas for no other reason than for greed and ego.

So there you go. My humble opinion. One voice in a sea of of many. Left/right, conservative/liberal, green/greed, socialist/democratic, and so many other philosophies will continue this arguement and keep polarizing people. Perhaps a middle of the road philosophy will ulimately win out one day.

Answer 5

First of all, the news agencies have been pushing global warming based on false reporting and lies, not from science. Scientist who study the climate (many), say it is not caused by man, or they are unable to tell the difference.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=49...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Conservation is an excellent way to live, if it makes sense. If people could actually save money conserving, then they will. But being forced to buy more expensive products (new light bulbs) which do not save money is crazy. Much of the hype surrounding "green" products is just that, hype. Solar panels being built in China are producing vast amounts of chemical waste which is being dumped in open fields in China.

Bio fuels are being forced on the public as a "green" way to live. But, in reality, biofuels have been expensive and very detrimental to the forests. They have also caused huge food and energy hikes.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...

When products are economically feasible, then people will buy them (I just replaced washer with high efficiency because it will save me money in the long run). But forcing people to purchase items so politicians can garner more votes is wrong.

http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly...

Answer 6

Great question. The right wing has coined the term "the new media". The "new media" is basically any media source (such as fox news or hack internet sites) that doesn't need pesky facts and journalistic standards to get in the way of the propaganda. The "mainstream media" is any media which is held under the scrutiny of journalistic standards and struggles to be moderate.

One is called biased, the other fair and balanced. Thats the mixed up world we've lived in since King George took the reign.

Answer 7

Since they invented global warming.  Their credibility will never be the same.

Answer 8

Since when does Al Gore have more credentials than real scientists and professors?