Spot the Bias in NY Times Global Warming Story
Can you spot the bias? From the New York Times, a March 8 report by John M. Broder, "At House E.P.A. Hearing, Both Sides Claim Science":
In an effort to support the E.P.A.’s regulatory power, committee Democrats rounded up five eminent academic climatologists who defended the scientific consensus that the planet is warming and that human activities like the burning of fossil fuels are largely responsible.
In the italics, yes, of course -- the New York Times states the so-called global warming "consensus" (a spin of the left) as fact and makes certain to inject it in the copy. A more objective line would have been:
In an effort to support the E.P.A.’s regulatory power, committee Democrats rounded up five eminent academic climatologists who testified that the planet is warming and that human activities like the burning of fossil fuels are largely responsible.
EXCEPT that's not the only bias to be found.
Note the way the GOP rebuttal is described in the next paragraph:
The Republicans countered with two scientific witnesses who said...
The Democrats' witnesses are "eminent academic climatologists" while the GOP's witnesses are merely "scientific witnesses." No academic eminence for them, no sir - yet, strangely, the official witness list for the hearing shows that every single witness is a university-affiliated Ph.D. scientist with appropriate credentials.
- Amy Ridenour's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Liberals would fix this problem by banning Italics
Submitted by redright88 on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 7:40pm.
Or taxing them.Or taxing them
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 10:17pm.
Some of them type, like they already do,,,,,,,"Rounded them up"?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 9:39pm.
As in, rounded the numbers up to show more global warming, higher seas, deader crops, more buzzing windmills, and greater green profits in Algorithm's portfolio? Or "rounded up" as in went to Illinois and found the scientists eating plankton-veggie wraps with the Wisconsin who were defending democracy by hiding?Come on, Amy...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 9:40pm.
This is too easy! If you're going to ask us to "spot the bias", the least you can do is provide more of a challenge."There... Are... Four... Lights!"
DC, I think Amy wrote this for our troll community...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 10:13pm.
...the members of which are probably still scratching their heads over it, hence the dearth of comments from them.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Scientific Consensus?
Submitted by Junk Science Skeptic on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 12:01am.
Any news outlet using the phrase "scientific consensus" should be forever banned from reporting on scientific topics.Science is not conducted by consensus, never has been, never will be.
"Scientific consensus" is the literary equivalent of "jumbo shrimp," although that comparison may be unfair to the really big decapod crustaceans out there.
Science involves proof, documentation and repeatability, all of which are totally lacking in the man-made global warming hoax.
To the extent that there is such a thing as an "eminent climatologist," there are less than 10 on the entire planet doing original work (albeit of dubious quality), so a dispassionate reporter who did any actual research wouldn't attempt to claim that the congresscritters had rounded up five of them.
The meme of the science being settled couldn't be farther from the truth. The science hasn't even begun. The concept or peer review on this topic has been perverted into "pal" review, and that review is being done by parties totally unqualified to review the work. The only work (again, of dubious quality) done so far has been entirely statistical, and the reviewing "peers" have been those in the earth science field, not the statistics field.
Scientific experiment results can be used to prove the accuracy of computer models, but computer models themselves, the only thing the climatologists have, are not scientific proof of anything. Even models that have been proven to be highly accurate are not proof of anything. Models are merely an estimating tool to narrow down the scope of research.
The climate models that have been used to justify billions in policy decisions can't even model past climate accurately. The proxy data fed into the climate models has been largely fraudulent.
The "first person shooter" video games that today's kids play are far more accurate prediction models than those being used to imagine future climate.
The scientifically illiterate reporters at the NYT should stick to reporting on Charlie Sheen.
Challenge is to spot objective reporting
Submitted by libBuster on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:42am.
The challenge with the once respected New York Times is to spot signs of objective reporting. That's hard to find.