Just as important as the bias in reporting and commentary is the bias in what's actually covered, for how long and how that information is disseminated. The Hunter Biden story is a great example of MSM attempting to memory hole an issue in favor of their guy with the active collusion of big tech.
Acknowledging viewer/consumer bias is a big point. I wonder how much that fuels the news companies and their adherence to narratives that seem to be continually woven into the coverage of stories.
All of you crazies now want to go to the time of Bishop Berkeley and exchange private research notes with everyone, After all Rush Limbaugh has said it to the relief of the riff raff on the right that everone has a right to his own subjective truth and there is no called objective truth!! But then there are two questions, number one there are people who went to school of journalism and took up jobs and they report to their different agencies. How can they even think of lying? I mean you know how difficult it is for co-conspirators to lie? Their differences in details could never get covered up. I mean those who on the right have jobs and businesses would understand the need to respect each others jobs. As for the rest of the basket cases they go to church and just depend on handouts and blame the devil for everything!! Senator Kennedy asked Facebook why can't you let people express whatever views they have? As long as some people want to hear them it should be fine!! How come the Trump platform has not been able to get beyond the faint squeaking and squawking that has stirred you to wake up from slumber and blame the news. I think American kids are being prepared by the right to live in Jones Town and Waco. Dreaming about nuking others all the time and singing ballads in memory of Papa Trump who by his own admission had it all till the China virus got him by the balls!! and the Biden punched him again in his weak spot.!! And that was no fake news!!
News people don’t have to lie, because they just copy each other’s stories and pretend they did the research themselves. From what I have learned, reporters and “journalists” are very lazy. This has been particularly true in the Middle East. The Palestinians will not allow reporters in if they have ever published the the other side of the story. So most journalists get their stories from the journalists who have reported exactly what the Palestinian leaders want to tell them. .And since Israel is a free society and Palestinian society is neither free nor democratic—or truthful, for that matter—the only story is the Palestinian one, with possible input from anti-Israel NGOs inside and outside Israel. It is a shameful business, and a sign of the lows to which newspapers have become willing to descend to publish a shocking or pitiful lie and make lots of money.
There is no objective doubt about anything you've brought forth today. Of course, we are not living in an objective era. Reality seems to have taken a back seat to hysteria, extreme partisanship with corresponding agendas and religious-like fervor with giant leaps of faith required...no...demanded of all. So how do we move past this? Any "golden age" of journalism, if it ever existed, is well behind us. From whence may come our societal " chill pill"? It would be nice if everyone could subscribe to BG Commentary and The Dispatch but of course that will never happen. Now what?
The problem is that conservatives and right wingers have consistently corroded trust in the idea of “objective facts” for years now, and now we’re seeing the disastrous outcome of that. Bernie I’ve long thought your idea of “bias”, like most conservatives on this issue, to be self-serving and extremely dishonest. Let’s take reporting on global warming. For years, decades even, mainstream media has been reporting on the dangers of global warming, and the facts of it. Not enough in my opinion. But ANYTIME they would you’d get whining from conservatives how BIASED the media is etc, only reporting on “liberal” causes. So much so that they actually had to change the terminology for it from “global warming” to “climate change”, to make people feel more comfortable with the concept I guess. Well as we’re seeing the world literally burn up in 2022, with devastating heat waves and floods and storms causing unprecedented destruction, something we’ve seen for at least the last 10 years, is there any freaking doubt the harm humans have caused to our planet from pollution and overconsumption, or any freaking doubt global warming is a reality that NEEDS to be dealt with? But because of conservatives insistence that ANY reporting on issues they don’t like to hear about is simply “biased”, regardless of how fact based it is, this idea of bias has been planted in the public psyche much to our peril. It is now most likely too late to reverse the effects of global warming because for too many years the reality of it has been dismissed as “liberal bias”. So basically Bernie, while this is only one example, it seems to me that more often than not what you and most conservatives call “liberal bias” is just the media simply reporting facts. Maybe they’re facts you don’t want to hear, but they are still facts.
No the real danger concerning the public’s trust of facts and the media as I see it is how this consistent history of denial and dismissiveness by the right has now led to the mass delusional state that the Republican Party and electorate currently finds itself in where they ACTUALLY think that the person who won the presidency, by 9 million votes, actually didn’t win the election. If that mass denial of something as basic as the outcome of an election doesn’t concern and scare you more than this sensationalized and misguided idea of “media bias” does then I’d suggest you go back and read your history books. Politicians who exploit peoples fear and anger and make them believe something is true that actually isn’t true, like say that the Jews are responsible for all that’s wrong in the world, leads to far greater evil outcomes than a sometimes flawed media that I’d say 95% of the time gets it right does.
Sorry, but the entire global warming hoax is based on modeled predictions, not actual data and the media has used the scare tactic of eminent doom due to climate change to sell papers and air time. Yet, we have 50 years of predictions that have failed to come true. Activists with PhD's who call themselves scientists use models to manipulate data to achieve a predetermined, desired outcome. Every time there is an extreme weather event, the left screams GLOBAL WARMING and claim that by controlling Co2, we can control climate. It's just plain ludicrous. That the media suppresses any dissent on the topic is why we say there is bias. If the media presented fairly both sides of the argument, then a real debate could be had. But instead, the media and people like you simply label skeptics as deniers. So, here is some actual data wattsupwiththat dot com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/. You may also want to read Steve Koonin's book.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. The debate in the scientific community about global warming is over. The dissenters account for maybe 1% of the opinion. How many studies by agencies and organizations as varied as NASA, the US military and the EPA that all confirm that global warming is real and is caused by human activity do we need before it’s accepted as fact and not “liberal bias”? These are not based on “models” but actual measurements of carbon levels and temperature going back to the 19th century. And just look around you bro - deadly heat waves in Europe, the US, Japan, more destructive storms every year causing billions in damages. Still wanna say it’s just “liberal bias”? Is it merely because you hear about it in the press or out of Barack Obama’s mouth that you want to call it biased? If so perhaps the real bias and denial is in you.
One more thing Paul. The "solutions" being promoted by the alarmist cabal will never replace fossil fuels. Weather dependent, intermittent/variable, and therefore unreliable energy sources are incapable of providing either baseload or dispatchable energy and the more unreliable energy sources added to the grid while decommissioning reliable energy sources leads to grid destabilization - as Texas, California, the UK and the EU are starting to learn.
And a question for you. How do you plan to produce wind turbines and solar panels without using fossil fuels since they don't produce enough energy to power the machinery needed to reproduce themselves? They are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave - for the mining and processing of raw materials which requires A LOT of heavy equipment, to transport, manufacture, site preparation, life cycle maintenance, and ultimate decommissioning. They also need fossil fuel backup for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. And no, batteries are not the answer given that they are not a source of energy, they store energy, just like a gas can that must first be filled, and the energy loss during charge/discharge cycle is not insignificant. With a capacity factor of maybe 20% for solar and between 30-35% for wind, you would need to excessively overbuild the energy infrastructure to produce sufficient excess energy to charge enormous battery arrays - that also require enormous number of heavy machines to mine and process raw materials, transport, manufacture, etc. The reality is that wind, solar and batteries are far more environmentally destructive than fossil fuels. For a more in-depth analysis read this: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check and this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/
This only shows you can find all kinds of crap on the internet to confirm your absurd, minority, naysayer opinions. Kind of like that the 2020 election was stolen. I mean really, there *is* evidence out there! “Wind, solar, and batteries are far more environmentally destructive than fossil fuels”. Wow, that’s a good one. So global warming is a hoax, green energy is a hoax, and actually you know what? Pollution itself is a hoax! The earth actually LIKES having us burn fossil fuels and coal that spew deadly chemicals into the atmosphere endlessly! It’s like we’re making a big warm blanket for the earth!
Sorry I’ll stick with the 99% consensus over some random guy in a comments section who doesn’t seem to think human activity has any effect on the health of our planet and in turn our health, or who thinks that the flooding happening RIGHT NOW in places it’s never happened before, fires burning endlessly around the globe, or the extreme record breaking heat waves happening everywhere are just part of the natural cycle. Keep living with your head in the sand while Rome burns.
Well Paul, your head is certainly stuck in a place where the sun never shines. What I provided was actual data - all you provide is the typical armwaving nonsensical stupidity. Please explain to me a couple of things that I already asked - like, how do you plan to build wind turbines and solar panels without using fossil fuels given that they can't produce enough energy to power the machinery needed to reproduce themselves? Also, name one thing in your life that you eat, drink, wear, walk on or otherwise consume that is not 100% dependent on fossilf fuels - name one. If you think life without fossil fuels would be great, go sign up for an episode of Naked and Afraid and see how well you make out. I doubt you would last a day. You need to look at real data and stop reading the headlines. And, if you look at what it takes to mine and process the raw materials needed for unreliables, you would see the environmental damage done - and don't forget, that mining requires the use of A LOT of fossil fueled powered very heavy machinery. I hate to break the news to you, but solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries do not magically appear out of pixie dust and unicorn farts.
Not wasting my time arguing with snarky people who still refute universally accepted climate science and try and distract with pointless debates about the economics of renewables. I’m not an energy technology engineer and unless you want to throw your credentials on the table you’re not either so let’s leave that to them. All I know is wind farms and solar farms continue to be built and it’s a rapidly growing industry so I think the feasibility question has been settled.
Also this wasn’t the point of my initial comment. The “liberal media bias” is too often used as a convenient myth to write off the entire enterprise of journalism, aka the pursuit of facts. Journalist, like engineers, are trained professionals who want to find out the truth about their subject. The media is the entity that presents their work and in my opinion warps it for sensationalized purposes way more than for political purposes. But the work of journalists shouldn’t get lost in that fray.
The "data" you refer to from NOAA has been manipulated multiple times to cool the past and warm the present. See here: realclimatescience dot com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/
If you bothered to look at the link I sent, you would see actual measurements that refute every one of your assertions - it shows actual measurements, not modeled adjusted BS coming from NOAA. In case you have not noticed, it's summer and heat waves happen in summer, there is nothing unusual about it. If you believe that a single variable in the atmosphere that makes up about 415 parts per million is what controls climate, I've got some ocean front property in Kansas that I sell you for a good price. By the way, Co2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm and life on planet earth survived just fine. When dinosaurs roamed, Co2 was between 2500 and 3000 ppm, and they fared just fine. As for the consensus, another made up number that gets repeated ad nauseum. No one denies that climate changes, it's been changing for 4.5 or so billion years. www.populartechnology dot net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html.
Just think about it and use a little logic. The climate is arguably the most complex system that humans have tried to model. It has no less than six major subsystems—the ocean, atmosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere. None of these subsystems is well understood on its own, and we have only spotty, gap-filled rough measurements of each of them. Each of them has its own internal cycles, mechanisms, phenomena, resonances, and feedbacks. Each one of the subsystems interacts with every one of the others. There are important phenomena occurring at all time scales from nanoseconds to millions of years, and at all spatial scales from nanometers to planet-wide. Finally, there are both internal and external forcings of unknown extent and effect. For example, how does the solar wind affect the biosphere? Not only that, but we’ve only been at the project for a few decades. Our models are … well … to be generous I’d call them Tinkertoy representations of real-world complexity. And all that complexity can be boiled down to a single variable that controls it all. Control Co2 and you control climate. As Richard Lindzen noted, to believe in that is to essentially believe in magic. merionwest dot com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
Yes, there is warming going on - however, the change may be cyclical and may not be man made. Man-made is the rationale for disrupting our western civilization. There is countervailing evidence that work against global warming thought, that is not discussed.
Read my reply above to Barnes. The debate is over in the scientific community. It’s this obsessive doubting and questioning of everything in the MSM by people like Bernie that’s led you to think there’s a whole side to the debate that’s getting suppressed. There isn’t. Literally 99% of scientists confirm it’s real. So please question your notion of “liberal bias”, because you might be missing some pretty important information.
I think you miss part of the point. The liberal bias exists when climate events are reported, but the tone and direction of the writing always suggests that something has to be done NOW, and that if we don’t act NOW, we will be forever scolded for it. Liberal media tells us that decisive action (carbon taxes/more wind and solar) must happen to reverse the, in your words, settled science (an oxymoron if there ever was one), when none of those solutions will solve the problem. Fossil fuels are going to be here for decades, and the liberal narrative that it can’t be is one big falsity. This is not about denial. This is about liberal arm twisting to control unworkable solutions for the sake of power. Liberal news outlets continue to pound this narrative, not through objective reporting, but through guilt and shame.
Really, what have you researched on global warming from the right side? What sources? I've researched religious, pro-life, sex-ed, HIV, vaccines and covid issues and the MSM does NOT come close to accurately portraying the other side. EVER. BTW, my degree is in Communications.
I’m wondering how the perception of journalists can be changed? What is the solution to this problem? As you point out, I’m not sure most consumers want, or even value less biased media coverage. And since clicks and views drive revenue, media companies are incentivized to give consumers what they want. I’m discouraged and fear it can’t be fixed.
Just as important as the bias in reporting and commentary is the bias in what's actually covered, for how long and how that information is disseminated. The Hunter Biden story is a great example of MSM attempting to memory hole an issue in favor of their guy with the active collusion of big tech.
The absence of news is bias too. So let’s all go to our comfy echo chambers and consume..
Acknowledging viewer/consumer bias is a big point. I wonder how much that fuels the news companies and their adherence to narratives that seem to be continually woven into the coverage of stories.
All of you crazies now want to go to the time of Bishop Berkeley and exchange private research notes with everyone, After all Rush Limbaugh has said it to the relief of the riff raff on the right that everone has a right to his own subjective truth and there is no called objective truth!! But then there are two questions, number one there are people who went to school of journalism and took up jobs and they report to their different agencies. How can they even think of lying? I mean you know how difficult it is for co-conspirators to lie? Their differences in details could never get covered up. I mean those who on the right have jobs and businesses would understand the need to respect each others jobs. As for the rest of the basket cases they go to church and just depend on handouts and blame the devil for everything!! Senator Kennedy asked Facebook why can't you let people express whatever views they have? As long as some people want to hear them it should be fine!! How come the Trump platform has not been able to get beyond the faint squeaking and squawking that has stirred you to wake up from slumber and blame the news. I think American kids are being prepared by the right to live in Jones Town and Waco. Dreaming about nuking others all the time and singing ballads in memory of Papa Trump who by his own admission had it all till the China virus got him by the balls!! and the Biden punched him again in his weak spot.!! And that was no fake news!!
News people don’t have to lie, because they just copy each other’s stories and pretend they did the research themselves. From what I have learned, reporters and “journalists” are very lazy. This has been particularly true in the Middle East. The Palestinians will not allow reporters in if they have ever published the the other side of the story. So most journalists get their stories from the journalists who have reported exactly what the Palestinian leaders want to tell them. .And since Israel is a free society and Palestinian society is neither free nor democratic—or truthful, for that matter—the only story is the Palestinian one, with possible input from anti-Israel NGOs inside and outside Israel. It is a shameful business, and a sign of the lows to which newspapers have become willing to descend to publish a shocking or pitiful lie and make lots of money.
There is no objective doubt about anything you've brought forth today. Of course, we are not living in an objective era. Reality seems to have taken a back seat to hysteria, extreme partisanship with corresponding agendas and religious-like fervor with giant leaps of faith required...no...demanded of all. So how do we move past this? Any "golden age" of journalism, if it ever existed, is well behind us. From whence may come our societal " chill pill"? It would be nice if everyone could subscribe to BG Commentary and The Dispatch but of course that will never happen. Now what?
The problem is that conservatives and right wingers have consistently corroded trust in the idea of “objective facts” for years now, and now we’re seeing the disastrous outcome of that. Bernie I’ve long thought your idea of “bias”, like most conservatives on this issue, to be self-serving and extremely dishonest. Let’s take reporting on global warming. For years, decades even, mainstream media has been reporting on the dangers of global warming, and the facts of it. Not enough in my opinion. But ANYTIME they would you’d get whining from conservatives how BIASED the media is etc, only reporting on “liberal” causes. So much so that they actually had to change the terminology for it from “global warming” to “climate change”, to make people feel more comfortable with the concept I guess. Well as we’re seeing the world literally burn up in 2022, with devastating heat waves and floods and storms causing unprecedented destruction, something we’ve seen for at least the last 10 years, is there any freaking doubt the harm humans have caused to our planet from pollution and overconsumption, or any freaking doubt global warming is a reality that NEEDS to be dealt with? But because of conservatives insistence that ANY reporting on issues they don’t like to hear about is simply “biased”, regardless of how fact based it is, this idea of bias has been planted in the public psyche much to our peril. It is now most likely too late to reverse the effects of global warming because for too many years the reality of it has been dismissed as “liberal bias”. So basically Bernie, while this is only one example, it seems to me that more often than not what you and most conservatives call “liberal bias” is just the media simply reporting facts. Maybe they’re facts you don’t want to hear, but they are still facts.
No the real danger concerning the public’s trust of facts and the media as I see it is how this consistent history of denial and dismissiveness by the right has now led to the mass delusional state that the Republican Party and electorate currently finds itself in where they ACTUALLY think that the person who won the presidency, by 9 million votes, actually didn’t win the election. If that mass denial of something as basic as the outcome of an election doesn’t concern and scare you more than this sensationalized and misguided idea of “media bias” does then I’d suggest you go back and read your history books. Politicians who exploit peoples fear and anger and make them believe something is true that actually isn’t true, like say that the Jews are responsible for all that’s wrong in the world, leads to far greater evil outcomes than a sometimes flawed media that I’d say 95% of the time gets it right does.
Sorry, but the entire global warming hoax is based on modeled predictions, not actual data and the media has used the scare tactic of eminent doom due to climate change to sell papers and air time. Yet, we have 50 years of predictions that have failed to come true. Activists with PhD's who call themselves scientists use models to manipulate data to achieve a predetermined, desired outcome. Every time there is an extreme weather event, the left screams GLOBAL WARMING and claim that by controlling Co2, we can control climate. It's just plain ludicrous. That the media suppresses any dissent on the topic is why we say there is bias. If the media presented fairly both sides of the argument, then a real debate could be had. But instead, the media and people like you simply label skeptics as deniers. So, here is some actual data wattsupwiththat dot com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/. You may also want to read Steve Koonin's book.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. The debate in the scientific community about global warming is over. The dissenters account for maybe 1% of the opinion. How many studies by agencies and organizations as varied as NASA, the US military and the EPA that all confirm that global warming is real and is caused by human activity do we need before it’s accepted as fact and not “liberal bias”? These are not based on “models” but actual measurements of carbon levels and temperature going back to the 19th century. And just look around you bro - deadly heat waves in Europe, the US, Japan, more destructive storms every year causing billions in damages. Still wanna say it’s just “liberal bias”? Is it merely because you hear about it in the press or out of Barack Obama’s mouth that you want to call it biased? If so perhaps the real bias and denial is in you.
One more thing Paul. The "solutions" being promoted by the alarmist cabal will never replace fossil fuels. Weather dependent, intermittent/variable, and therefore unreliable energy sources are incapable of providing either baseload or dispatchable energy and the more unreliable energy sources added to the grid while decommissioning reliable energy sources leads to grid destabilization - as Texas, California, the UK and the EU are starting to learn.
And a question for you. How do you plan to produce wind turbines and solar panels without using fossil fuels since they don't produce enough energy to power the machinery needed to reproduce themselves? They are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave - for the mining and processing of raw materials which requires A LOT of heavy equipment, to transport, manufacture, site preparation, life cycle maintenance, and ultimate decommissioning. They also need fossil fuel backup for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. And no, batteries are not the answer given that they are not a source of energy, they store energy, just like a gas can that must first be filled, and the energy loss during charge/discharge cycle is not insignificant. With a capacity factor of maybe 20% for solar and between 30-35% for wind, you would need to excessively overbuild the energy infrastructure to produce sufficient excess energy to charge enormous battery arrays - that also require enormous number of heavy machines to mine and process raw materials, transport, manufacture, etc. The reality is that wind, solar and batteries are far more environmentally destructive than fossil fuels. For a more in-depth analysis read this: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check and this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/
And, explain why it is that the doomsayers are zero for all time in their climate predictions. https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
This only shows you can find all kinds of crap on the internet to confirm your absurd, minority, naysayer opinions. Kind of like that the 2020 election was stolen. I mean really, there *is* evidence out there! “Wind, solar, and batteries are far more environmentally destructive than fossil fuels”. Wow, that’s a good one. So global warming is a hoax, green energy is a hoax, and actually you know what? Pollution itself is a hoax! The earth actually LIKES having us burn fossil fuels and coal that spew deadly chemicals into the atmosphere endlessly! It’s like we’re making a big warm blanket for the earth!
Sorry I’ll stick with the 99% consensus over some random guy in a comments section who doesn’t seem to think human activity has any effect on the health of our planet and in turn our health, or who thinks that the flooding happening RIGHT NOW in places it’s never happened before, fires burning endlessly around the globe, or the extreme record breaking heat waves happening everywhere are just part of the natural cycle. Keep living with your head in the sand while Rome burns.
Well Paul, your head is certainly stuck in a place where the sun never shines. What I provided was actual data - all you provide is the typical armwaving nonsensical stupidity. Please explain to me a couple of things that I already asked - like, how do you plan to build wind turbines and solar panels without using fossil fuels given that they can't produce enough energy to power the machinery needed to reproduce themselves? Also, name one thing in your life that you eat, drink, wear, walk on or otherwise consume that is not 100% dependent on fossilf fuels - name one. If you think life without fossil fuels would be great, go sign up for an episode of Naked and Afraid and see how well you make out. I doubt you would last a day. You need to look at real data and stop reading the headlines. And, if you look at what it takes to mine and process the raw materials needed for unreliables, you would see the environmental damage done - and don't forget, that mining requires the use of A LOT of fossil fueled powered very heavy machinery. I hate to break the news to you, but solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries do not magically appear out of pixie dust and unicorn farts.
Not wasting my time arguing with snarky people who still refute universally accepted climate science and try and distract with pointless debates about the economics of renewables. I’m not an energy technology engineer and unless you want to throw your credentials on the table you’re not either so let’s leave that to them. All I know is wind farms and solar farms continue to be built and it’s a rapidly growing industry so I think the feasibility question has been settled.
Also this wasn’t the point of my initial comment. The “liberal media bias” is too often used as a convenient myth to write off the entire enterprise of journalism, aka the pursuit of facts. Journalist, like engineers, are trained professionals who want to find out the truth about their subject. The media is the entity that presents their work and in my opinion warps it for sensationalized purposes way more than for political purposes. But the work of journalists shouldn’t get lost in that fray.
The "data" you refer to from NOAA has been manipulated multiple times to cool the past and warm the present. See here: realclimatescience dot com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/
If you bothered to look at the link I sent, you would see actual measurements that refute every one of your assertions - it shows actual measurements, not modeled adjusted BS coming from NOAA. In case you have not noticed, it's summer and heat waves happen in summer, there is nothing unusual about it. If you believe that a single variable in the atmosphere that makes up about 415 parts per million is what controls climate, I've got some ocean front property in Kansas that I sell you for a good price. By the way, Co2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm and life on planet earth survived just fine. When dinosaurs roamed, Co2 was between 2500 and 3000 ppm, and they fared just fine. As for the consensus, another made up number that gets repeated ad nauseum. No one denies that climate changes, it's been changing for 4.5 or so billion years. www.populartechnology dot net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html.
Just think about it and use a little logic. The climate is arguably the most complex system that humans have tried to model. It has no less than six major subsystems—the ocean, atmosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere. None of these subsystems is well understood on its own, and we have only spotty, gap-filled rough measurements of each of them. Each of them has its own internal cycles, mechanisms, phenomena, resonances, and feedbacks. Each one of the subsystems interacts with every one of the others. There are important phenomena occurring at all time scales from nanoseconds to millions of years, and at all spatial scales from nanometers to planet-wide. Finally, there are both internal and external forcings of unknown extent and effect. For example, how does the solar wind affect the biosphere? Not only that, but we’ve only been at the project for a few decades. Our models are … well … to be generous I’d call them Tinkertoy representations of real-world complexity. And all that complexity can be boiled down to a single variable that controls it all. Control Co2 and you control climate. As Richard Lindzen noted, to believe in that is to essentially believe in magic. merionwest dot com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
Yes, there is warming going on - however, the change may be cyclical and may not be man made. Man-made is the rationale for disrupting our western civilization. There is countervailing evidence that work against global warming thought, that is not discussed.
Your own example negates your theory. There are two sides to the climate change debate, the MSM only presents one. https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/
Read my reply above to Barnes. The debate is over in the scientific community. It’s this obsessive doubting and questioning of everything in the MSM by people like Bernie that’s led you to think there’s a whole side to the debate that’s getting suppressed. There isn’t. Literally 99% of scientists confirm it’s real. So please question your notion of “liberal bias”, because you might be missing some pretty important information.
I think you miss part of the point. The liberal bias exists when climate events are reported, but the tone and direction of the writing always suggests that something has to be done NOW, and that if we don’t act NOW, we will be forever scolded for it. Liberal media tells us that decisive action (carbon taxes/more wind and solar) must happen to reverse the, in your words, settled science (an oxymoron if there ever was one), when none of those solutions will solve the problem. Fossil fuels are going to be here for decades, and the liberal narrative that it can’t be is one big falsity. This is not about denial. This is about liberal arm twisting to control unworkable solutions for the sake of power. Liberal news outlets continue to pound this narrative, not through objective reporting, but through guilt and shame.
Really, what have you researched on global warming from the right side? What sources? I've researched religious, pro-life, sex-ed, HIV, vaccines and covid issues and the MSM does NOT come close to accurately portraying the other side. EVER. BTW, my degree is in Communications.
I’m wondering how the perception of journalists can be changed? What is the solution to this problem? As you point out, I’m not sure most consumers want, or even value less biased media coverage. And since clicks and views drive revenue, media companies are incentivized to give consumers what they want. I’m discouraged and fear it can’t be fixed.
Journalists are bought (and my degree is in communications) Educate your friends about the MSM propaganda. https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/