Monday September 24, 2012, 4:39 am
noted, thanks Cal

Monday September 24, 2012, 5:13 am
I just watched the movie The Lorax the other day. I think it should be required for neighsayers of climate change to watch.

Monday September 24, 2012, 6:45 am
Thanks for this article.

Monday September 24, 2012, 7:54 am
I wish it wasn't so shocking, it benefits the industrialists and their purses to keep us unimformed! Thanks Cal!

Monday September 24, 2012, 8:24 am
And they get away with it because it suits people to deny the horrible truth! The world as we've known it is gone...already gone. Things will only get worse.

Monday September 24, 2012, 8:38 am

It's just beyond logic that people willingly support science when it benefits them, as in medical discoveries. When science proves as it has for decades, that our heaping piles of trash, dumping in the oceans, over fishing, belching billions of tons of toxins into the air, water and soils, that means adapting to a new life style. I guess acceptance is more difficult then death.

Monday September 24, 2012, 8:42 am
Noted

Monday September 24, 2012, 8:58 am
This study was by the "Union of Concerned Scientists"?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-of-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
As cute as the dog is, I don't think an association which takes him as a member can claim to be composed of subject-matter experts, or even scientists.

Just in case anyone thought this was deceptive, and that members are accepted, then vetted, and removed if inappropriate, check the dates on that and this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/01/friday-funny-kenji-gets-invited-to-the-ucs-cartoon-contest/

The Union of Concerned Scientists is about as scientific as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. It's just another advocacy-group pretending to be neutral and scientific to gain undeserved credibility.

Monday September 24, 2012, 9:02 am
I have a theory that Murdoch's readers and viewers are generally miserable and enraged folk because they realize at a subconscious level that they are being lied to over and over again even though they can't get it consciously. Its an inner conflict, and they rage at liberals because that is what FOX tells them to do.

Monday September 24, 2012, 10:13 am
noted thanks Cal

Monday September 24, 2012, 10:24 am
The only surprise with them would be if they told the truth about something.

Monday September 24, 2012, 12:14 pm
Noted.

Monday September 24, 2012, 1:55 pm
Thanks for sharing!!

Monday September 24, 2012, 1:57 pm
News Corp misleading people!?! I cannot, WILL not believe it.

Monday September 24, 2012, 6:11 pm
not surprised....

Tuesday September 25, 2012, 12:46 am
99.9% of scientists are concerned about climate change. The deniers seem pretty vocal even so.

Tuesday September 25, 2012, 1:11 am
noted........

Tuesday September 25, 2012, 3:18 am
Noted thanks..

Wednesday September 26, 2012, 9:59 am
Hi everyone!

I noticed this idea of a consensus getting repeated here, so I thought I should point out something about where the "97%" comes from, the Doran survey:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

It actually gets worse when you look at the original survey-questions: To count as "climate-scientists", respondents had to self-identify as such. The problem is that climate-science is an inter-disciplinary are of study, while most scientists will identify their field of work by their discipline. Unless we reject the reasonable assumption that the belief that a problem could become apocalyptic will lead a person to concentrate on it and make it more likely that this person will identify his or her work accordingly, we must accept that this requirement biased the sample. Then there is the implication of the two-thirds non-response rate. If a majority of scientists considered the problem so important, then why would roughly three quarters of them not bother with a two-minute survey on the matter?

Of course, there is also the classic "corroborating" study. the other study which found a large climate-consensus was a straight paper-count. They counted the number of peer-reviewed papers which they subjectively decided were either pro- or anti- catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. The Anderegg survey, however, also runs into selection-bias issues:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/the-tribalistic-corruption-of-peer-review-the-chris-de-freitas-incident/
A paper that is clearly "anti-CAGW" is less likely to get published under the conditions produced by the supporters of the theory.

There is misleading going on and I would be shocked to find that Fox did not take part, but the "Union of Concerned Scientists" and the study on which the article is based are also a part of it.

P.S. I know I pulled all of my sources here from a single blog. They are, however, easy to independently verify. I just used the one blog as a matter of convenience.