(10-24-2013 05:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Quote:False balance is a real or perceived media bias, where journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence actually supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may suppress information which would establish one side's claims as baseless.

Why does this matter? It matters because the media can create controversies where there are none, misinform the public, and push an agenda. This happened with vaccines, evolution, and still happens with global warming:



This is just an example, but it illustrates just how little media outlets care about properly representing science.

And by this you mean Media Matters, right?

Because the 97% among climate scientistsis wrong. Wrong. As in not right. Not even close to being right. As in completely, factually erroneous. Not even close.

So, why would you post something known to be completely wrong? And why would Media Matters do it? Especially since you say

Quote:Consensus isn't really evidence, you say. That statement is true if you think it's supposed to serve as direct evidence. It's not. Consensus studies are intended to correct misconceptions people have about the state of the science. It's an indicator of how much scientists are in agreement, nothing more. This matters because perception affects voting and public policy decisions.

Should we give skeptics airtime? Of course we should. However, giving the fringe undo attention is not fair or balanced.

By fringe, you mean the hardcore climate catastrophists. Because they are in the minority.

Everytime one of these climate threads pop up I just can't help but imagine Al Gore laughing all the way to the bank.

(10-24-2013 06:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 06:17 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Could it be that the "news" isn't global warming, but that the news is actually that global warming has com under increased scrutiny the past few years. Therefore, the stories featured are about the growing doubt as to man's direct impact on global warming. In the near future I believe the "fringe" will become the majority on this topic.

That's the point of false balance. You're making an example from me. You got this perception from somewhere, and it doesn't reflect reality. It reflects what the media focuses on, as this increased scrutiny you speak of doesn't exist outside of the media.

And what reality is that? That the stories regarding the credibility and severity of global warming are more newsworthy than the stories of global warming themselves?