Chris Matthews show, Global warming, and CRU Hack

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the portrayal of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in media, specifically referencing a segment from the Chris Matthews show. Participants express concerns about media bias, the political implications of AGW discussions, and the absence of mention of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails in the show.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Chris Matthews show did not address the CRU emails, suggesting a selective focus on AGW that aligns with political affiliations.
  • There is a claim that the show implied that skepticism towards AGW is linked to being a Republican or disliking Al Gore, which some participants find problematic.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the media's coverage of AGW, questioning whether they are missing important information regarding the CRU situation.
  • Another participant draws a parallel between the behavior of scientists in medical research and the potential for bias or conspiratorial interpretations if their communications were leaked.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the political nature of the discussion surrounding AGW and the media's role in shaping public perception. There is no consensus on whether the media's portrayal is fair or biased.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect assumptions about political affiliations and motivations behind skepticism of AGW, which may not be universally applicable. The discussion also highlights the potential for selective reporting in media coverage.

seycyrus
Woops, I apologize for the misleading subject heading as the events at CRU were not brought up at all, or even alluded to in the slightest. Not by Chris or any of the 4 members of his panel.

What they did tell you was that if you were a democrat, you should get in line with the rest of the democrats and and be pro AGW! They showed a poll (taken from Oct. 25th BEFORE the emails were leaked) that those who favored immediate action on GW were 83% democrat.

To further classify those who are hesitant regarding AGW they of course showed a few clips of Rush spouting.

And then there was the point that the people who have doubts, really just don't like Al Gore!

So, to sum up. If you have concerns about any of the tenets of AGW, you are a republican, who is a Rush-o-phile, and just don't like Al Gore.

Ouch! That shepherd crock sure is starting to hurt!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
seycyrus said:
Woops, I apologize for the misleading subject heading as the events at CRU were not brought up at all, or even alluded to in the slightest. Not by Chris or any of the 4 members of his panel.

What they did tell you was that if you were a democrat, you should get in line with the rest of the democrats and and be pro AGW! They showed a poll (taken from Oct. 25th BEFORE the emails were leaked) that those who favored immediate action on GW were 83% democrat.

To further classify those who are hesitant regarding AGW they of course showed a few clips of Rush spouting.

And then there was the point that the people who have doubts, really just don't like Al Gore!

So, to sum up. If you have concerns about any of the tenets of AGW, you are a republican, who is a Rush-o-phile, and just don't like Al Gore.

Ouch! That shepherd crock sure is starting to hurt!

ok then. Is this just to start yet another AGW proponent bashing thread?
 
How is this thread not political?
 
Sorry! said:
ok then. Is this just to start yet another AGW proponent bashing thread?

Oh no. I'd categorize this as an attempt to draw attention to certain media outlets apparent attempt at choosing the to make or unmake the news.

I say *apparent*, because after all, I only listen to NPR for 2-3 hours a day, everyday, check the CNN page throughout the day and watch CNN at night. I *could* be just missing the coverage of the CRU situation.

But then today watching the Cris Matthews show where one of the topics was something along the lines of "Why are some people critical of aspects of AGW"?. And to see CRU not even MENTIONED, not even in passing, not even so it could be dismissed. Why it sort of raises an eyebrow or two, or three...

Just remember, if you find any aspect of AGW worthy of more inspection, or have any doubts about AGW in any way, it is only because you are an Al Gore hating Republican who worships at the altar of Rush Limbaugh.

There is *no* other possible reason why anyone would question AGW, none, nada, zilch.
 
Chi Meson said:
How is this thread not political?

Forgive me for not posting in the correct sub section, it was not intentional.
 
I know a bunch of scientists at the medical research council, they spend most of their time avoiding other researchers seeing their work, arguing patent deals with various drug companies and back stabbing each other.
If their emails ever leaked out you would conclude that all of modern medicine was a conspiracy and go back to leaches.
 
mgb_phys said:
I know a bunch of scientists at the medical research council, they spend most of their time avoiding other researchers seeing their work, arguing patent deals with various drug companies and back stabbing each other.
If their emails ever leaked out you would conclude that all of modern medicine was a conspiracy and go back to leaches.

:smile:Don't worry, after "health insurance reform", medical research might be next.:smile:
 

Similar threads

News Is the Global Warming Hoax Really Unstoppable Every 1500 Years?
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
Global Warming Debate: Refuting Common Arguments
  • · Replies 180 ·
7
Replies
180
Views
36K
News Is James Randi a skeptic or a Republican climate change denier?
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
Global Warming Retreat: Evidence Shows Sun is Responsible
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K