After CNN is taken down, and this time with the approval of the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Council, we mostly stayed with Fox. Viewers of the network in the US tended to doubt global warming much more than viewers of other news networks, in the US they fear that this will lead to polarization between the two parties and the fear of Republican candidates to support science that is considered an enemy of the public
The residents of Israel are exposed to the danger of false information with very little ability to listen. This is after the CNN network is removed from HOT's screens this week. A few years ago, in preparation for the disconnection (which lasted a year and a half and in the end the CNN broadcasts were returned for another year until they go down again) a replacement was decided upon: Fox News broadcasts. The problems with this replacement are many, first the network has almost no worldwide coverage compared to CNN. Second, her views, to put it mildly, are not suitable for the most scientifically developed country in the world. You will never hear the word evolution there, but the denial of science is reflected in one area - global warming. I thought until now that it was just my personal feeling, but a new study confirms that the American news network Fox News deliberately paints a distorted picture of climate change, something that has an effect on increasing political polarization in the US. The study published by the International Journal of Journalism and Politics, under the title: "Cable Climate: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage by Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
The study examined prime-time cable broadcasts in 2007 and 2008 and found that while CNN and MSNBC showed responsibility and reported scientifically accurate reports, the Fox network "discussed climate change more often than others" but "the tone of coverage was dismissive."
According to the study, "Fox's broadcasters were more likely to add comments challenging the scientific consensus about climate change, diminish the reality of climate change, and question human responsibility for causing it." The website MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA adds that since 2008, the situation has only gotten worse (and I can add to that as a casual viewer of the network).
An internal network email revealed that the editor-in-chief of the network's Washington offices, Bill Sammon, instructed Fox reporters in December 2009 to question the basic fact that the Earth is warming. Later that month, the Fox network promoted the false claim that the Climategate scandal revealed that scientists had manipulated the data - a claim that the network continues to repeat to this day. This is despite the fact that in many studies conducted on the subject it was proven that the data was not processed and at most the researchers grumbled about the need to justify themselves to the deniers, that no explanation would convince them.
Fox also attempted to manufacture a number of pseudo-scandals by twisting scientific studies, misinterpreting or dismissing temperature records, and took every opportunity to whitewash what the National Research Council calls "a solid and credible body of evidence" supporting man-made climate change.
The study also found that Fox hosted a greater number of climate deniers than science supporters as guest interviewees. "These guests often don't know what they are talking about but they are presented as climate experts." In addition, the network also continues to cultivate an annual ritual of questioning warming every time a winter storm occurs, thereby revealing the bias through what it chooses to cover and what it chooses to ignore."
Fox News is a loud, popular and influential network that gives its viewers a misconception about climate science. The study concludes and says that Fox News represents a different perspective of reality compared to CNN or MSNBC, when the knowledge and opinions of the viewers of the networks are expected to be polarized."
Indeed, political affiliation is the strongest indicator of how people think about the reality of global warming. The extremism of the representatives of the Republican Party regarding climate change has moved sharply towards the denial of 2007. Back then there were still many Republicans who recognized global warming and called for government actions to reduce the problem.
However, there is still hope because other studies show that Republicans who were more prone to denial relented when confronted with the facts. The question is, will the other networks, and Fox's parent company, News Corp., which often expresses concern about climate change, put Fox in its place regarding the well-documented, willful misreporting?
For information on the website of the Media Matters association
73 תגובות
My father - you quote CEI - which is not much more than an organization of conspiracies. Let's just say they aren't exactly quoting honestly………
Tell me - does anyone really think that the world is not warming? Are you willing to bet on your children's lives because you don't like hearing that?
I suggest you chain smoke... After all, the danger in cigarettes is also a conspiracy...
Spring.,
I never for a moment suspected you of being in the pockets of tycoons or others. It is possible that, as you say, a platform is also given to the opponents, I personally did not come across their publications until Dr. Avital's class at YNET. Until then I was fed by the media reports and I was sure that there was a complete consensus on the current issues.
It was only in your response to me that I heard about Climategate for the first time, it was only inspired by the discussion that developed here that I saw the British Channel 4 film for the first time, I read opposing opinions and became familiar with Prof. Shabib's arguments.
Thanks.
I would love to get to know you in the meantime I am basing myself on subjective facts from your style and method of conveying information on the site and your responses to the approach of those who express a multi-perception approach.
You don't know me, I'm the last person to have any sympathy for tycoons. And not for the big media, see the title of this news - about Fox.
Your bitter mistake, Abi B, is that the tycoons control the media and they dictate the agenda and the advertising ratio between what suits them and what is against their interests.
Unfortunately, either you are a prisoner in their hands in a naive sense and therefore you sanctify the investigations found in magazines or the largest media stations in the world or there is something hidden in the open about the reasons for all your blatant statements that deny any other alternative.
Yael and Avi, the deniers have taken over all the media, not only in California where Israel Shapira hears them, but also in Israel.
Everywhere they are at least allowed to balance even though their number is negligible compared to the number of scientists in the mainstream. Even the BBC was required on the subject and issued an audit report, which stated that on issues such as global warming, vaccines, etc., the right weight should be given to science and opponents.
And besides, I believe that you don't need to balance everything within the site, the internet is big enough to contain deniers' sites as well.
Yael Yaffe scored my position
This is exactly what I meant, my friend Israel, when the scientist publishes articles that will also present the opponents because as soon as the scientist presents articles that claim to tell the only truth, then it is important that the public (you and I and maybe more) read and decide if they have a desire to find out more in depth and make cross-references with other parties.
Unfortunately, my father b. Totally locked on a concept that if there isn't something right now in front of his eyes, surely then the news is irrelevant garbage, a hoarding of nonsense and other negative terms.
And he says things in ignorance like "there is enough evidence" "but it has already been proven that these are marginal"
Who proved how he proved what the tools and data were to prove and what was the real purpose of proving half-truths to truths.
And the funny thing is that suddenly my father says that this or that scientist should not be turned into a religion (because this scientist proves a claim contrary to what he published)
Yael
https://www.hayadan.org.il/study-confirms-fox-news-creates-alternate-reality-on-climate-science-2711114/#comment-316367
Not only do I hear the opposing views of the deniers all day - I also hear it from all those who are the most pro-Israel.
The natural tendency is to embrace their opinion warmly. And yet I always ask myself: how exactly do they know?
40 years ago, an activity began against the emission of lead into the air from cars in Los Angeles. This required a change in all the cars, changing the types of fuel and more. A lot of money and trouble. The cries of resistance reached as far as San Francisco.
Today we are reaping the rewards in the form of a much cleaner city. There is still a lot of smog - but much less, even though there are many more cars.
Almost everyone admits that it was an excellent plan in retrospect.
Don't say preachy?
There is enough evidence that carbon dioxide (and not the idiotic nickname you are trying to give it) is a greenhouse gas and that its production by humans due to the burning of fuels has already caused severe changes in the climate and will cause even more if they are not stopped.
No one rules out the contributions of other factors such as the sun or cosmic radiation, but it has already been proven that these are marginal. Nor does anyone rule out the fact that a respected scientist is involved in this, every phenomenon must be studied, it does not affect the climate so it affects something else. But one should not turn the science of this or that scientist into a religion.
Israel,
I loved the attitude! It is sickening to see how certain commenters on this site allow themselves to rant and swear when all they do is read articles. I am especially disgusted by that commenter who often uses the nickname "liar". As a Jew, I also have a hard time with the title "denier", because it immediately connotes "Holocaust denier".
But if you're already reading articles, I think it's worth reading some opinions. The scientific basis of the opponents of FDF->man-made->global warming is very scientific and solid. I personally cannot dismiss him easily.
I recommend listening to Prof. Nir Shabiv a bit and paying attention to the facts he presents - it's interesting.
my father
With all due respect to all of us - what do we know about what is really going on there?
It revealed an email, he said, she whispered - so what?
Do you really believe there is some conspiracy by the scientific establishment to hide the truth? That people who chose a profession whose entire purpose is to expose the truth will suddenly change their skin and start lying, and this without getting sick and vomiting?
If they say then they mean what they say. They may be wrong - but who are we to judge? By what means?
And there will always be opponents to every issue. If you want, I'll give you a site where there are links to thousands of articles against Einstein and relativity - so it prevents the GPS from working? A nuclear bomb going off?
So I'll use your favorite phrase: Tol Cora is beyond your eyes, it's not our place to judge if we don't have the right background.
Except that it's really really cold lately. Probably because of the stains.
Know that you will wake up and seek the whole truth and not just what is close to your heart
The scientific basis for the claim that there is global warming is not supported by real world data, and therefore economic studies on the apparent benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are without any basis.
These are the findings of a new peer-reviewed article written by a former executive at the Environmental Protection Agency - EPA.
Dr. Alan Carlin, now retired, was an environmental economist at the EPA when he wrote a report in June 2009 with a harsh critique of the scientific basis of the global warming theory.
As in many other cases, his superior ordered him to keep quiet, not to publish the report and to stop working on the issue of global warming.
The Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to silence Dr. Carlin became a major publicity embarrassment for the agency, especially after their commitment to administrative transparency.
Now, a new study by Dr. Karlin - a multidisciplinary, scientific and grounded approach, has been published in the international newspaper "Research Environment and Public Health".
In the research he finds that the use of mineral fuel has little effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Furthermore, the claim that atmospheric CO2 emissions have a strong effect on temperature is wrong for various reasons, starting with low atmospheric sensitivity to volcanic eruptions, the absence of ocean heating, and the absence of a predicted "tropical hotspot" condition.
For this reason, according to Dr. Carlin, in practice "the economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be two orders of magnitude lower than what is advertised."
Many do not realize this, but decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions have economic consequences and a lot of money, politics, influence and power are involved, not just the excuse of protecting the environment.
A year ago, the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to withhold information from the public regarding Dr. Carlin's audit was revealed.
Four internal EPA emails were disclosed to the public in which Dr. Carlin was specifically instructed not to disclose his findings to anyone without permission, to stop any work on global warming and to concentrate on other things. All this from the claim that these findings will endanger the agency's official position (that there is global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions - n.d.c.).
"Dr. Carlin's research has been completely blacked out, a ban on its distribution within the agency or its publication to the public." This is what the CEI organization claims, which revealed the affair.
Yael... Sorry if I offended anyone, but I'm tired of people endangering the future of my children - literally.
The figure of every 15 minutes comes from 100 a day and that is the accepted number today. That's about 100 times the normal extinction rate.
Some more numbers I know:
1. The number of fish species in North America has decreased by 5% in the last 100 years
2. There are about 5000 types of mammals. In the last 500 years, about 100 of these have become extinct, and another 170 are in immediate danger of extinction.
3. In recent years, 3 out of 8 tiger species have become extinct. Today there are only a few thousand tigers left in the world.
4. In the last century several species became extinct only in Australia, including the Tasmanian tiger. The Tasmanian Devil may be on the way.
5. About 40% of all species that exist today are in danger of extinction.
6. Examples of species on the brink of extinction - Asian cheetah (about 100 alive), mountain gorilla (less than 800 alive), Philippine eagle (several hundred left). The list goes on - to continue?
I hope you are beginning to understand what kind of world we live in. Today there are 7 billion people. In 50 years this number will double. These people will never see a tiger, gorilla, rhinoceros or night parrot (kakapo).
Yael... I wish I was wrong. I would love to eat the hat. Do you still think it will happen?
There are articles that deal with the disappearance of fish and it turns out that besides fishing, the most threatening factor is the increase in sea acidity as a result of the absorption of carbon dioxide.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/sea-bacome-acid-1412061/
And here is a study on the connection between warming and the extinction of plants - of course they are also species, not just the animals
https://www.hayadan.org.il/seed-bearing-tree-coud-extint-2901114/
dear father,
Am I the only one reading the articles here? The links you brought are shocking and important beyond compare!!!
But there is no link or mention of global warming. It is described there about irresponsible human behavior of harming the creatures' habitats and wild and uncontrolled hunting.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/crowling-to-their-death-1710108/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/endangered-species-2210101/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/bird-on-the-edge-of-extintion-1310086/
Avi,
You must be joking... or you don't understand what it is about. These are fossilized creatures, some of which became extinct 472,000,000 years ago!
These are your examples of human influence on Earth's climate???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_Red_List_of_extinct_species
CNN discussion on increasing extinction of species (much more than 3 in the last hundred years)
https://www.hayadan.org.il/biodiversity-panel-cnn-2808107/
North Miracles,
Where did you get this story of "a species goes extinct every fifteen minutes"?, can you give examples of "only" 3 species that have become extinct in the last hundred years?
I suggest you be careful when you talk about idiots, that you don't eat the hat at the end...
Yael …. You're all wrong it's sad. In the past there were great disasters in which a large part of the species became extinct. Today - especially thanks to man - we are witnessing the extinction of species at a frightening rate. It is about the extinction of a species every quarter of an hour!!!
Earth is not in danger. Neither does humanity. But many, many millions of people are in clear and known danger.
It is our job to leave a better world for our children. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot.
The world is full of idiots.
David and Yael... Some of the articles in Popular Technology explicitly support man-made warming - especially those in Nature and Science. It is true that the oil industry magazines are opposed.
I would love to hear about a real scientific body, or a renowned climatologist, who claims that humans have nothing to do with warming.
David, you are talking nonsense. The articles published in respected journals are marginal and do not change the picture, downloading an article takes time, but even so, an article that is not in the newspaper's area of expertise is worthless because they do not have the skills to check it. It's just like I'm going to start posting about the exploits of models. I don't understand it.
Father, forgive me, your entire first paragraph is a pile of nonsense.
You have in the list of 257 well-known journals on the topic of climate.
All are worthy and legitimate.
You won't attack the peer review mechanism just because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Regarding remote sensing from Remote Sensing
Are you aware that the editor resigned but the article was never retracted?
Here it is here:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/
Who has heard of such a thing?
Try to maintain scientific objectivity and not a double standard
Yael:
Here it really begins.
When religious people of the conspiracy religion come across real reasons they attack the whole world and his wife instead of facing the facts.
The fact is that Gyura Shabib voluntarily entered the debate.
In fact, as I said, he was a guest on the Galileo website and stopped by to answer questions.
The fact is that no "religious" person stood up to him and not even a moral sermon in your style was heard.
All in all, data was presented that contradicted his claim and all in all he had no answer.
I really ask everyone who reads here to go to the link I provided and see what a terrible distortion of the facts Marsha Yael allows herself to do in the name of her religion.
Those who read the Wikipedia entry will also understand that despite all the problems that may or may not exist in the data - the vast majority of the climate scientist community agrees with the claim that the warming is anthropogenic.
I guess all these scientists failed to notice the problematic nature of the data that Yael is talking about.
What fools all these scientists are!
I understand father,
What words can't I say?
I have to try one word... do you forgive me?
Lord
To David Dahan
The problem is their selectivity. No one is saying that an article by a denier can't get in, but it is a fact that it is more difficult for them and they have to deal with marginal issues and not the main problem. In addition, some of the articles are over a decade old. The journals also take time to understand that they have been worked on. There have already been cases of editors resigning because of the slippage of such articles.
An example of an article that is over a decade old, and that was written before Hurricane Katrina and which is referred to from the denying website.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1526-0984.2000.74003.x/abstract
And an example of an article in Nature addressed as if it were an article by deniers - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html, the bottom line is that the positive feedback is not 100% but only 60%, which means that the warming will happen a little slower but also there it is written that it is due to emissions as a result of human activity, so it is not clear how he supports the deniers. As I said, these articles touch on marginal issues that do not change the picture much.
Regarding the resignation of the editor of the journal Ramot Sensing - https://www.hayadan.org.il/taking-responsibility-on-publishing-the-controversial-paper-0409117/ - This reveals a tactic of the deniers, to go to small journals that deal with issues whose touch on the climate issue is on the fringes in order to bypass those who are really knowledgeable about the issue.
Obviously, if the study were conducted today, the results would be completely different.
Liel, I already answered you yesterday that a denier went and checked the results with Exxon funding and found otherwise, so suddenly you cross him instead of admitting your mistake.
There are keywords that cause blocking after being used by trolls. Since I happen to be at the computer right now, I unblocked you within ten minutes of being blocked.
By the way, I am writing exactly about the crisis in Durban where the governments of the USA, China and India are preventing decision-making.
Did you block me? Why is my comment suddenly unpublished?
Did I exaggerate the heresy?
Here it happens here too, the discourse becomes a religious discourse instead of a scientific one: tap-tap-tap global warming, everyone will fall off the cliff if they don't listen to the Rebbe, the earth is sick, it has a "fever" and is very sad.
These are hysterical and emotional approaches that have nothing to do with science! I read all the articles that Michael and others brought: Nir Shabiv is talking about something else at all, the theory is not his at all, I can understand his father who is reluctant to debate with religious and brainwashed people.
I have no doubt that whoever reads the articles, even just the Wikipedia entry, will understand that the database is very problematic and that there is no science between the data and the conclusions. To me it reminds me of the religious people who somehow in retrospect always claim that everything was said in advance and God is responsible for everything - go argue with them.
I will state some of my conclusions: for reasons of conservatism and prudence, we should protect our environment from any pollution (chemical, physical, noise, radiation, etc.). The quality of data collection needs to be improved, the ice cores provide data with too high a measurement error to draw conclusions. The relationship of human activity to climate change should be analyzed mathematically and not emotionally, based on better quality data. All the apocalypse predictions of the warming supporters have not actually come true! There has always been volatility in the climate like Doha for reasons that are not yet clear to us. The greenhouse effect/greenhouse gases are not derogatory words - they are the ones that made life possible on the surface of Doha (without them the temperature was about minus 18 degrees Celsius on average).
There are links to 900 articles from 257 different professional peer review journals.
including Science and Nature.
I don't understand what the problem is.
Miracles:
The problem here is much more difficult.
If they fall off the cliff - the sane people will also fall off the cliff and then no one will come to anyone because there will be no one to come and no one to come to.
To David Dahan:
I read some of the articles on the website you mentioned - Popular Technologies. The truth - I would refer any warming skeptic to this site.
A large part of the articles are from various oil companies. Some of them make a personal attack on scientists who study global warming. Some of them are simply false. Much of it is extremely bad science.
It is the right of every person not to believe in global warming as a result of human activity. It is also the right of every person not to believe in the laws of gravity.
Just don't come to me when you fall off the cliff ……..
This is a capitalist propaganda site that opposes any restrictions on corporations to run amok and is therefore against the environment (because it costs companies money, it doesn't matter that the citizens lose many times over in terms of health), it is against taxes for the rich (but for its part that the poor should pay all their money) and it calls for sites that try to expose the criticism of The corporatists are extreme shamans.
This is just another extreme version of the Fox network, more extreme than your previous original. Comrade', I didn't choose Science and Nature for nothing - they are committed exclusively to science and not first of all to ideology and then adapt science to ideology as these delusional websites do.
Avi if you are looking for peer review articles by opponents of the anthropogenic warming hypothesis
You can find references for all of them here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Yael:
If you are interested in the opinion of the scientific community as a whole - you are welcome to read the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_warming
Here is an article by the head of the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences in Tel Aviv:
http://geophysics.tau.ac.il/images/stories/articles/global-warming.pdf
A summary based on the conclusions of scientists in Israel (including Pinchas Alpert and Nir Shabiv)
http://www.actcool.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/GWREPORT.pdf
And another link to a summary of the opinions of several scientists:
http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/mechkarim/kliot_6-103_1.pdf
Regarding the sun as the source of the increase in warming - one of the bearers of this flag is Nir Shabiv.
On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
Here is a link to that section of the discussion:
http://forums.ifeel.co.il/forum_posts.asp?TID=197629
About a month ago, another comment was suddenly added to the discussion - an article written by the head of the Department of Environmental Sciences - Tel Hai Academic College
http://the-black-butterfly-effect.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post.html
Thanks for your responses. And on this occasion good night. I will continue to monitor the responses tomorrow morning.
In any case, I understand that there is doubt in your heart as to the sources of warming, but no one prevents the skeptics from checking for themselves and publishing articles. I am sure that the article would have been published even if its results had been the opposite. The problem begins that when the ideas cannot be tested, it is easier to resent the scientific community than to conduct an experiment.
These fields - especially the sun, are being researched very intensively and just a week ago I was (and reported) at a conference that dealt with the 24th solar cycle and was held at the Open University in Ra'anana (it is still fresh under the Environment and Energy link in the HEADER). They study the effect of the ionized particles from solar storms on the satellites and the electrical system on Earth, and along the way learn the nature of this activity. In addition, huge amounts of data are produced from observations of the sun from several spacecraft, and this data is also available to any scientist who wants to use it to study the sun's effect on the climate.
The fact that such articles were not published in first-class scientific journals does not mean that there are colleagues sitting there who reject every article by a denier, but that the things did not mature into an article or that they proved the opposite of what the researcher assumed from the beginning.
Trust the scientific community, despite the claims of the deniers against it, it is not fossilized and has not become a kind of religion. It is a fact that when there is a scientific discovery, even if it is not generally agreed upon at the beginning, science eventually recognizes it by awarding the Nobel Prize to Dan Shechtman.
Science and Nature have a proven track record of over 100 years each and the safest is to go to their light. I am not YNET or Kol Israel who should give a platform to every opinion. For me there is truth, as it is presented in the scientific journals and everything else is not truth. Anyone looking for an alternative truth has enough sites to provide it. This site is a site that reflects the opinion of science only.
Avi,
I will try to answer you. Because science is the journey and the search and not the arrival at the destination! In any case, I don't decide anything about anything, and despite that, you have no reason to look down on me as if I were a stupid woman.
In my opinion, prejudice causes double damage! Allow me to explain with an example: if you put an innocent person in prison for a crime he did not commit twice, because the guilty person continues to walk around freely and an exemption and injustice is done to an innocent person. In my opinion, this is also the case in science... being locked on a wrong concept is both harmful and prevents the search for the right answer.
I think that even on the topic of warming, we should keep an open mind and not suppress honest and true research. Because even if it is a natural cycle of warming/cooling that man has no influence on... humanity can still have an interest in controlling this "nature". But only from a good theoretical understanding it seems to me that we will be able to develop effective solutions (if required).
I apologize if I was aggressive towards you. I just read attacks on commenters here that made me feel very disapproving and uncomfortable.
OK so now there is an answer. 74%
Besides, the skeptics first managed to cast doubt on the quality of the measurements and many of them continue to claim that there has been a cooling since 1998 or nonsense like that. Now that argument has been debunked by one of their own.
I read the translation into Hebrew and the original in English...
I came to a slightly different conclusion than yours regarding the essence of the article - the article talks about improving the quality of measurements. There is no doubt that there has been an increase in the average temperature in recent decades, regarding the meaning... I took the summary of the source in English from the article you provided:
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this part of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
Yael, I believe that you simply did not understand correctly what they wrote at NASA. In any case, we accept the words of Prof. Yoav Yair, an atmosphere expert, who was the coordinator of Ilan Ramon's Madex project, who tested lightning and dust in the atmosphere, and knows a thing or two about the climate machine. He of course reads the updated literature and if there were any doubts, he would pass them on and not raise them. Not to mention that I have already read and translated hundreds of articles from the most authoritative sources - NASA, universities, the IPCC and I have never come across an article by skeptics (deniers).
From the conversations I had with denier scientists, I understood that their knowledge on the subject is limited or that they are researching one of the fields that affect the atmosphere, while there is a whole set of fields that need to be taken into account.
I am simply frustrated by responses that bring up the words of the deniers, and especially by the fact that people in Israel believe this. Filled the USA where the right has turned denial into an ideology, but what do people in Israel from all ends of the political spectrum care about the narrow and irrational considerations of the Americans. After all, there is only one truth, and science is trying to get closer to it, why not listen to it?
Well, it's nice to have your own opinion. Which is even exactly the opposite of NASA's opinion!
Because they clearly note that the current models do not consider significant factors such as: solar activity, the effect of cloudiness (which they say can affect the warming by 33%), the effect of sulfates, suspended particles and more...
My father recommended me to read the articles here, but warned me about the comments here. I'm starting to understand what he meant. How come you haven't blocked me yet? Have I not said enough heresy?
I didn't say it wasn't true, I just said that the scientists take these things into account, and the calculation on the warming is net, so you bring partial data, which has already been used in the calculation of the warming.
Your mistake is that you draw your sources from stakeholders, who frame them in such a way that they look convincing. And again I repeat my position, if Science and Nature back down from their unequivocal position in favor of man-made warming, I will too. Until then, no politician will change my mind. Imagine that politicians suddenly start to interfere in the questions of the ratio of hydrogen and helium in blue giant stars or decide that the standard for a mammal is five legs and not four, should we listen to them even then?
And one more thing, you asked to read the literature, here is a scientist who did so, who unequivocally belonged to the community of global warming deniers, after he checked all the data of the weather measurements since their beginning and with the funding of the Koch brothers, he came to the unequivocal conclusion that there is man-made warming and that in the last fifty years it has already accumulated to a whole degree Celsius
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-world-indeed-warming-2310114/
And one more thing, I was at a lecture by a senior NASA official who investigates global warming and is responsible for analyzing the results of the relevant satellites, almost two years ago and she told me unequivocally that warming is a fact and that Climategate is a collection of nonsense https://www.hayadan.org.il/climategate-is-nonsense-2701101/.
Now you understand that I am frustrated that people allow themselves to say the opposite of what the relevant people told me or wrote in the articles and even attribute it to NASA.
??
What are you talking about? This is the next page on the site you brought!
I would appreciate it if you would correct a mistake I said and enlighten me.
The science website is not a pseudo-science website, for the simple reason - I follow the footsteps of Science and Nature and not the daily press or the Fox network.
Their approach is unequivocal because the science is clear and unequivocal, all doubts originate from interests outside of science. And yet, apart from the fact that you practice the regular practice of other truth trolls, of frequently changing nicknames as if someone is chasing you, you did not give me a link to any explanation. If the explanation is from a journal like Science and Nature, it is worth reading. If not, it's just propaganda.
At the moment when there is a silent graph it is impossible to refer to it.\
As for NASA's page, read today's article about emissions of 10 trillion tons of carbon in 2010 and Assaf's article from yesterday about man being responsible for 74% of the warming. Some of the things include reference to these uncertainties, meaning that after taking them into account there is still considerable warming as a result of human influence. Prof. Yoav Yair also said this (the particles cool, but it still does not balance with the man-made urbanization).
Grow up, you are being misled, and trying to interpret scientific findings for you in order to distort them. The success of the oil companies does not fall short of that of the cigarette companies who for 40 years cast doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer. This is the stage where the energy companies are. It's not just that the Koch brothers, the owners of one of the largest oil companies in the US, have so far invested $50 million in advertising and public relations to sway the debate.
They are also the financiers of the Fox network.
to miracles north,
The monitoring of the sun is carried out in an orderly and reliable manner with the help of satellites "only" from the 70s. Indeed, the pattern of 11 years in the sun's activity was found - which affects about 1%+/-!
The point is that from a variety of other sources it appears that the sun probably has additional patterns that affect the sun's activity with a much greater intensity than +/- 1%. What are the reasons for these changes? What is the intensity of the changes? What is the frequency of changes? These are things that today's scientists still do not understand, but analysis of historical evidence and ice cores indicate that they occurred!
Avi,
I attached a graph that is not really related... the graph shows PADH concentrations and not temp changes! If you also read the explanations, mainly here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/
You will see that even NASA does not claim to have a single meaning in the data.
If you expand and conduct a literature survey... you will see that the data really do not point to clear conclusions. There are many studies by respected scientists that show a closer connection between temperature changes and solar activity and convincingly refute the effects of man (including the effect of an increase in the concentration of PAD).
I suggest you stick to the facts and science... you look a bit like a religious fanatic who doesn't let the facts confuse him. You certainly wouldn't want Hidan to be called a pseudo-science website, would you?
And I don't go back on my previous statements and my support for a "green" approach, because I linked them to completely different aspects of our quality of life!
It is impossible to refer to a graph that has no explanation, and it is not clear what the source is, the deniers are known for the disinformation they spread, so the source must be carefully checked.
And by the way, ten thousand years ago we barely left the ice age so it doesn't even add to the possibility that you understood the graph correctly.
And besides, here's a NASA graph that shows a completely different picture
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Father, try to be accurate.
This is the warmest decade since they started measuring with thermometers
This is of course not the hottest decade in human history. Far from it
Here are 10000 years back, measurements from ice cores in the South Pole and Greenland
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
I say again - there are calculations that show how much CO2 causes warming, and how much CO2 humans emit.
I don't know of any "respectable group of scientists" who deny these two facts.
Sunspots occur every 11 years - and even then the impact on the climate is not great/
There is no danger to the planet - save the planet is nonsense. There is a serious danger to the future lives of many people.
I can't understand how so many fools think that global warming is a "bluff" of some scientists and politicians - do you hate your children so much???
With me, solar activity has been weak in the last decade, and the warming continues. It was the hottest decade in history.
What you are doing is misrepresenting the facts because the assertion that global warming does not exist is not the property of the Fox network alone, but many in the scientific establishment and I will explain myself. No one claims that there is no warming. The debate is about the cause, while the scientific mainstream is toin that the blame is on the humans who emit greenhouse gases into the air, there is a different group. respected scientist who claims that this is a completely natural process that occurred in the past and originates from sunspots and their effect on our planet
Oops, I meant to say that Itzik is right.. the subconscious takes over!
Mirom is right.
They ignore the facts and give mass disinformation.
True, as Christians by definition, they also support us, both when needed and when not.
I don't watch the news to be told what I want to hear, and certainly not in quantities on a primitive satellite like Fox.
I guess the people of Seattle and Northern Montana are not opposed to some slight warming of 4, 5 degrees... Anyway, the warming itself doesn't matter so much whether the average Portlander believes it or not.
As of today, I am among the confused.
I've heard of several models and they all sound too good (in addition to what we all know there is a model [actually 2 are almost identical] that talks about the collapse of the atmosphere and this is due to the accumulation of liquids. The models are shocking. One talks about the year 17-20 and the other about 30-40. It's more or less The whole difference. Another thing I've heard talked about at all is that our location for the milk path is such that it creates warming - and that also sounds reliable and reasonable to my non-scientific ear)
I believe we will act. I also know when: in the 91st minute. That's how it works here. As long as the oil does the job (and there is some person who squeezes a profit from it...) most of us will start gasoline under the hood.
I do not understand the denial of global warming. There are calculations that show from the amount of CO2 we emit - what is the effect on the temperature. There is nothing to argue with these calculations.
This is a legitimate question, what are the solutions to the problem - but those who deny the facts are from the point of view of "the saver of his tribe hates us".
Mirom
Leave the warming wasteland - great Fox network, isn't it?
I wish the channels in Israel were as pro-Israeli as Fox (which by the way is more popular and influential than any other network individually, including CNN, and even a combination of several of them together).
And - is considered the most reliable. See:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-24/entertainment/30064927_1_bill-o-reilly-fox-news-new-poll
Mirom, it is clear that there is a psychological bias here.
In science, we deal with facts and proofs, with which it is easy to prove that Fox News are systematic liars in a variety of fields, including the climate issue. Even if they are right in their opinion in general and there is no warming, this does not give them legitimacy to distort facts.
You generally tend to have a funny attitude. Takes a political issue in which there is no truth and falsehood in the scientific sense, and another issue in which you are clearly not objective but emotionally invested, and claims that the bias of Fox News in favor of your political opinion qualifies their biases on a variety of other issues. Fox News is not objective on any political issue and does not even pretend to be.
The core of your argument is clear - your political opinions are more important to you than scientific issues, and biases that serve these opinions train other biases. You may also think that you are on the political side that is clearly and absolutely right (moral justice is a definite scientific fact), a side that does only good and maybe even God is behind you.
Fascinating, I didn't yawn at all. You are so special, there is no one like you in Israel.
Cognitive dissonance or not, I'm glad that every anonymous commenter here is going to be a psychologist at ninety. But if I may return to the topic of my original response - the damage caused by doubting the causes of global warming is sixty times the damage caused by anti-Israeli incitement which can certainly serve as a basis for the next pogrom against us.
And now for the prediction corner - the next commenter will again ignore the core of my argument and claim that my response is motivated by primitive survival drives.
Tamir.S - No blogger on the net will be able to "remove our responsibility" with a single podcast.
Words are not true just because someone said them.
In the meantime, there are scientists who have examined the claims of Henrik quoted by Levy and refuted them
https://www.hayadan.org.il/cosmic-rays-too-wimpy-to-influence-climate-0505091/
That's how it is in science. Whoever makes an extraordinary claim must bring extraordinary evidence, and Henrik did not bring it.
That's how it is when you read parts of things.
Precisely on the subject of global warming - I recommend that you listen to Ran Levy's post on the subject (Ran Levy is responsible for the podcast 'Making History') - "Chapter 66: Are we responsible for global warming?"
An interesting argument is made there that removes from us (mankind) the responsibility for the phenomenon.
Here is the link to the post: http://goo.gl/g5yfY
I agree with my father, it is permissible to doubt everything:
In the connection between high voltage lines and cigarettes and cancer,
In the connection between the millions of tons of soot and the greenhouse gases
that descend on the world every year and the climate
more and more.
The question is what will happen and where will we be when we find out
that the doubters were wrong and we did not exercise the duty of caution
for ourselves and the whole world.
Friends, the main discussion here is the gagging of the Hot company and not global warming.
In a situation where I cannot decide on the issue of warming, I want to hear a variety of opinions on this issue, as well as on matters of evolution, the conflict, etc.
The fact that a company with over 2 million subscribers allows itself to take down such a major news channel - regardless of its viewpoint - is a mockery of Resh's subscribers and civil society in Israel.
I would expect members of the Knesset to stand up and say - that's it! This is a channel that must be in the basic package, along with Fox and BBC (unlike Bibiton (-;
I personally have not decided on the issue of warming - the earth and life in general consist of cycles, patterns and trends.
Perhaps there is now a warming cycle with an upward pattern and some sort of trend, and it just happens to have worn on for the last hundred years. maybe not.
Kahneman called this the memory bias - we tend to attach too much importance to new information regardless of the information's importance or quality. We may be ignoring other cycles.
It could be to the same extent that the coal we released into the air will suffocate us all in this generation.
that's not the point. The first thing is that we will be able to hear at all, the second thing is that in any case we must demand to lower the pollution. This.
Yair, it is permissible to doubt everything, both that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. The last decade was the warmest in history, the step jump was made already at the end of the nineties and since then they have maintained a high level, even the coldest year in the last decade is in the top ten of the warmest years.
I listen a lot to various stations in the Los Angeles area, and am aware of the strength of the "anti-warming" sentiment. It really sounds strange, but it seems like most speakers do believe there is no warming. Most reports on most other topics sound incredibly balanced (at least to my ears), and I find it hard to believe that the same speakers themselves would be biased on this one topic. It is more likely to believe that this is what they really believe, and it is not difficult to find evidence to justify the belief that there is no warming, at least in North America, and even if there is, it is not bad.
Most - correction, all - the "ordinary" people I talk to, believe that the whole warming thing is a fiction designed to enrich Al Gore and his gang. Those who understand a little about the subject, think differently. I don't understand much about the subject, so naturally I will adopt the scientific mainstream version, assuming that they understand more, although if tomorrow they turn around - I will probably turn around with them.
Obviously, the situation is different for those whose God is not science but Rupert Murdoch.
And maybe it is permissible to doubt global warming? And even if there is, maybe the person is not guilty of it? Especially since there has been no warming in the last decade. I saw an argument that even if it is not certain it is appropriate that we address it because the damage may be enormous and I agree with it, but to make it a religion?
I really don't like lies of any kind, in this context I turned to the BBC when they broadcast an entire news story about the shelling in Gaza without mentioning that the reason for this was that a few hours earlier rockets had been fired at Israeli cities. On another occasion when I didn't apply, and I later regretted it, there was a case where their correspondent in Gaza spoke for about five minutes about the difficult situation there due to the shelling, and when he started to explain that everything happened because of missiles on Israel, they thanked him very much and moved on to sports. By the way, in my answer to her on the first issue, I received an answer that it is impossible to give all the background in any way.
Most radio stations in California mention Fox: a lot of talk against the "global warming lie", against Obama, and all in favor of Israel.
The reason is, by the way, ratings. This is what listeners want to hear. The few "leftist" stations have almost no listeners. All the action on KFI 640, at Rosh Limbo or on 790 at Sebag and Levin.
Same with Fox. It's just more fun to watch news there. (Certainly for the Israelis).
I guess the picture is pretty similar on the east coast as well.
Mirom, liars are liars...
It is convenient for you to believe that there is a difference between different fields and your belief has a name in psychology: cognitive dissonance.
It is recommended to watch Jon Stewart, he catches Fox News lying almost every day and in many areas.
Maybe (only) in this matter they are a little mistaken, but Fox is probably the most objective news network regarding us, the Jews. On almost every other network I can think of, our country is portrayed as a bloodthirsty country that slaughters innocent people every Monday and Thursday. And this, forgive me very much - a much bigger crime than doubting the causes of global warming.