U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 16, 2010 09:39 PM UTC

Corporate Enforced Denial

  • 12 Comments
  • by: ardy39

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

UPDATED: Global temperature graph now includes preliminary 11-month data from 2010 and a graph of solar output for the last decade.

(as reported by Media Matters who has been reporting on their acquisition of leaked emails from the goons at Fox)

Last year Fox News [sic] reported on the climate talks in Copenhagen. For a brief segment they reported on the factual conclusions from scientists, including the fact that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record.

So far, so good, right?

No. No. NO.

Apparently, reporting facts and letting you decide conflicts with actual corporate policy.

Video and email below.

So here is the brief segment, from Dec. 8, 2009, in which a Faux News correspondent reports a few facts:

Fifteen minutes after airing this segment (indeed, less than 15 minutes later!), Management Goon Bill Sammon sent out this email:

From: Sammon, Bill

To: 169 SPECIAL REPORT; 036 FOX.WHU; 054 FNSunday; 030 Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 Senior Producers; 051 Producers; 069 Politics; 005 Washington

Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay; Smith, Sean

Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009

Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data…

…we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

Brilliant! Here’s the babelfish reverse Hebrew via Mandarin Chinese translation of this into plain English:

Don’t report the findings of 99% of the active climate researchers without “qualifying” it by mentioning the CSB* of a few public relations whores in the employ of the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobil. The task at Faux News is to manufacture controversy where no scientific controversy exists. There’s profits to be had. It’s also one of the few things we are actually quite skilled at, after all.

It’s warming. Get used to it.



(Global surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 mean for (a) annual and 5-year running means, and (b) 60-month and 132-month running means. In (a) the 2010 point is a preliminary 11-month anomaly. Green vertical bars are two-standard-deviation error estimates.  Hansen et al. Dec. 13, 2010)

Furthermore, the warmest decade in recorded history (2000-2009) occurred during a declining trend in solar activity. Are you paying attention, deniers? Just think what we’re in for by 2013 if solar activity is the driver behind recent observed warming!

As also noted in this and other Media Matters reports, it is apparently OK to state a verifiable lie about climate scientists on Fox News [sic] without providing any factual evidence or counterpoint.

But reporting facts is verboten?

We are so fucked by media corporations and their Kochsucking minions.

(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Breathe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Breathe 1 2 3 4 Breathe …)

.

I’m going to go outside and talk to a wall.

.

*CSB or caterwauling shit blizzard: usually reserved to describe a public outburst from soon-to-be-former Sen. Josh Penry, but my hacked version of babelfish deemed it appropriate here.

Tweet
Share

Comments

12 thoughts on “Corporate Enforced Denial”

      1. Why go to ad hominem?

        But I am curious. What conclusion would you have me draw from this chart? If we look back 130 years, we have an anomaly of .6 degree from the mean. Do you see something different?

        And I say again, so what?

        This chart has to convince me that:

        1) The underlying data are reliable

        2)  The climate models can accurately backcast and forecast and…

        3) Somehow this increase leads to a tipping point and a meaningful change in climate

        Not so q.e.d. Alarmist claims about warming or change or disruption have not proven out.

        You have no idea what my education or experience is. I have no idea what your education or experience is. Speak to the issue. That is my interest. What’s yours?

        And finally, with all of 6 comments, no one cared about this thread. Why do you think that is?

        1. This graph has to do no such thing. A single graph is insufficient to provide a complete education. So, but asking this of one graph, it suggests to me that you aren’t really very serious.

          Besides, no one was making any claims that the graphs were “scary.” I just put them up there as evidence of what practicing and publishing climate scientists have concluded. I apologize if you find this “scary.”

          I hesitate to be patronizing, because you are correct, I don’t know your education nor experience. On the other hand, you didn’t hesitate to be a dick even though you do not know my education or experience. Maybe you want to start over?

          To clear up one misunderstanding, the graph above shows that average global temperatures have increased nearly 1degC in one century (not 0.6deg – the full range of anomolies is from near -0.4 to +0.6degC)

          So, before I go any further, it would be helpful if you cleared up a few issues I have with your questions. I’m not going to get into a game of whack-a-mole or moving goalposts. (Plus, this time of year it’s hard to devote time to COPols when there are more important family events to participate in.)

          > What do you need to know in order to conclude the data are reliable? Do you have a priori criteria?

          > What would be an accurate backcast/forecast? Do you have a priori criteria?

          > Why must there be a tipping point involved? Do you have an a priori definition of “meaningful change in climate?”

          I’m sure you don’t need any further clarification, but for anyone else who reads this, I would like to point out that the average annual temperature in Pueblo is just over 1degC warmer than Denver. And that Albuquerque is just over 3degC warmer than Denver. So, every degree warmer in average temperature is equivalent to moving 100-130 miles south. All else being equal, of course.

          So far there have been no “alarmist” claims coming from actual practicing scientists. Indeed, their sober and carefully stated conclusions resulted in scientific predictions that underestimated the rate at which Arctic sea ice has declined. Scientific predictions have underestimated the rate of glaciers break up into the ocean around Antarctica. Scientific predictions have underestimated the rate of ocean level rises.

          If you know more than all those scientists, please share your knowledge with us.

          Perhaps this diary hasn’t gotten many comments, perhaps, because nobody has made any dickish claims that anyone else took seriously. My apologies for ignoring you up until now.

            2. And finally, with all of 6 comments, no one cared about this thread. Why do you think that is?

              I think that is because most sentient creatures find it hard to disagree with solid scientific data, provided they understand it. I read it, and knowing ardy to be one of the smartest, most well-informed posters here, didn’t see the need to give him an “attaboy”. But since it matters to you:

              Well done, as usual, ardy.

              Oh…and the other thing:

              such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.

              Critics have also called into question whether Fox News is really a news organization or simply a well financed mouthpiece for the U.S.Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth (or whatever the hell their name is now).

              And critics can’t be wrong…now can they?

              1. Some dipstick on this diary called into question whether Ardy39 (or Ardy33, or Ardy36, . . . or any of the other Ardys from the fine line of ArdyCo products) knows what he’s talking about — that dipstick remains a dipstick, and Ardyxx prevails.

                It’s the non-critical thinkers you have to watch out for.  (And with that statement, I now call into question dipstick and his or her ugly information.)  

  3. is this one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…

    The list, it should be pointed out, is incomplete. But out of all the scientists in the world, deniers could only come up with THREE who say that global warming isn’t happening. Two of them are in sciences closely tied to the coal industry (one’s a geologist and one’s a coal chemist). Go figure.

    1. And 2 of those 3 make claims that there’s been no warming since 1998. Which is true only if one denies facts, including such inconvenient ones that 2005 & 2009 were both warmer than 1998 (and that 2010 is forecast to be within hundredths of a degree of the record). And that a line fit to data since 1998 shows an increasing trend!

      Monthly global temperature anomaly (blue) with line of best fit (red) from 1998 to 2007

      In this case, a line of best fit calculates the temperature trend is 0.16В°C per decade from 1998 until July 2007. This is a close match to the temperature trend over the last 30 years (0.15В°C from 1975 to 2007). So even starting from 1998, we find the planet is still warming at the same rate.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

165 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!