Are "deniers" of AGW in U.S. gaining via media tricks?

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.

You don't have to be a denier to have a tiny ounce of common sense. At some point, even the biased media isn't going to perpetuate a ridiculous lie when anyone going outside can see how foolish it is. I wouldn't expect it to be getting any better soon. The real world doesn't care what some bogus computer models says. Ah, the tiny flaw in the propaganda campaign that even the changing the name to climate change can't fix for most rational people.

I think the truth that global warming is a hoax is finally gaining over the Communist propaganda.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorn...

'Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting. "

If it never gets hotter than 1998, then it's going to be hard to convince people that human activity is causing unprecedented warming. Your either going to be skeptical or else keep reassuring yourself that while global warming could reverse for 20,30 or more years, it's definitely going to happen in 100 years time.

It doesn't matter what people believe anymore, it's already too late. Our existance will end this century, a small mercy for any other species that manages to outlive us.

Yes, they engineered the 37 degree temperatures in Miami last week so that a right-thinking media blitz would happen.