Are "deniers" of AGW in U.S. gaining via media tricks?
Are proponents of AGW / Climate Change inside the USA losing the credibility and importance war to the on-slaught of the "denial machinery" and special interests who use all the media tricks?
Article from: The Australian Print March 14, 2009 WASHINGTON: More Americans than at any time in the past decade believe that the seriousness of global warming is being exaggerated, a new Gallup poll shows.
Forty-one per cent of Americans told Gallup pollsters they were doubtful global warming was as serious as the mainstream media were reporting -- the highest result in more than a decade.
In 2004, 38 per cent of Americans thought news reports exaggerated the seriousness of global warming.
Gallup's 2009 environment poll, which surveyed 1012 adults by fixed and mobile phone, also showed that Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues they might be concerned about.
The pollution of drinking water was deemed the greatest source of concern, with 84 per cent of respondents saying it worried them.
Other issues that were ranked -- and beat global warming by at least five percentage points -- were water pollution in general, toxic contamination of soil and water, fresh water supply, air pollution, loss of rainforests, and the extinction of plants and animals.
The number of Americans who thought global warming was already affecting the planet fell from 61 per cent in March last year to 53 per cent this year.
A record high 16 per cent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they believed the effects of global warming "will never occur".
"Americans *generally believe global warming is real (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue."
Dana19812009-03-15T21:32:36Z
Favorite Answer
I don't think it's media "tricks" as much as it's just bad reporting. The problem is that American media feels it needs to be "balanced". So deniers get almost equal air time to AGW proponents, even though in the scientific community the deniers are in the vast minority. This creates the false impression among the public that there's major debate on the issue, when in reality the science is quite clear that humans are causing global warming.
Any story which is controversial also gets a lot of attention and good ratings, and people want to believe that we're not to blame for climate change. So the media has a vested interest in featuring deniers, because it gets them good ratings.
It's just unfortunate that the American media is now less interested in getting the facts right and more interested in getting ratings and being "fair and balanced".
The responses to the above link seem mostly unfavorable to the premise. That indicates there seems to be a resistance to cease using the word yet, at least those who felt moved to answer. The choice to continue it's usage or not would have to come from the general authorities, not the membership. That's simply how the church is organized: from the top down. My turn: Sometimes a question will be posted in a certain fashion that indicates a 'side' has been chosen, and responses may be all over the board. I'm guilty on that regard, but I do not, or at least try not, to attempt to be 'inflammatory'. Being advesarial does not necessarily mean 'foe'. Answering post to preserve a point of view is equally difficult, and sometimes it's a chore to separate the poster from the post. Once again I'm as guilty as the next, but I try to at least research the 'other side of the coin', as the first side has usually been presented. I certainly never intended to become a vicious 'anti' and preceived as a villainous cretin, but I knew from the beginning this was not going to be a walk in the park. I've reread some of my past posts, and I can say that some were handled without too much sympathy or compassion; others I think are spot on. Learning to live with diverse attitudes is the beginning of acceptance. Without that, people will continue to run on emotions where reason could prevent a disaster. Like, Peace
Somehow, I think the same poll in Australia would turn out much differently ! There are few 'deniers' of AGW down under. Nobody down under thinks that Al Gore is trying to raise their taxes. The EXTREMELY DEADLY climate changes in Australia,are going unreported in the US media. It will take a tragedy of unspeakable proportions before Americans demand some answers ! Unfortunately, many will continue to live in the "Dark Ages" about science, and just claim it's a form of punishment from 'god'. LOL ! If every year now , for the past decade, every year brings more record breaking severe weather. How much is too much? The ever widening parameters of severe weather records , is a clear signal of Abrupt Climate Change !
I think most people will rank threats based as much on perceived immediacy as to eventual magnitude. If I don't see it in my backyard today or tomorrow then what is there to worry about? Maybe it's a survival instinct or something, but we tend to take more seriously perceived impending problems over those that seem further out into the future. It is a myopic or short sighted view of the situation.
First of all Leaders pushing an agenda always make things dire, therefore the people should be skeptical. And as far as media tricks, the believers used the media to push the agenda far more then those who did not buy into the fear tactics. Most common sense people believe we should study the climate and take care of our environment what the the far left did was take a issue and use it for political gain and to further a leftist agenda. Its no different then when far right wing groups use the same tactics. The people suffer for the sake of the elitist few.