The story seemed a little short on substance. The AP surveyed more than 100 scientists but only 19 responded and the story only quotes 5 of them. The story should be: the AP surveyed over 100 scientists and only 19 bothered to respond, but we’ve got great quotes from five of them. Republican senators have challenged the AP to fully report the results of their survey and question whether the AP survey was balanced. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
Do you find the story misleading? Do you think it likely that the AP chose to ignore the claims of the scientists who think that the global warming scare is based on junk science? Did they survey or ignore known skeptics? Is this another example of mainstream journalism’s bias on the issue? I personally wonder why the supporters of global warming, including whoever this reporter is, have to go to such questionable lengths to bolster their arguments.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That response rate seems pretty typical from people busy doing other things who mostly don't really care. Its not a statistically useful survey, but then again, neither are most of the other ones news agencies (or politicians, for that matter), do. Its not dishonest to keep using the same simple methodologies you use for everything else in order to get comments.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the story is misleading at all. The article clearly says that the 19 scientists that it talked to okayed the facts behind Gore's movie, and that they had originally solicited opinions from 100 scientists. They didn't lie about anything.
Survey's are, in and of themselves, not necessarily representative of fact, or even majority opinion. But, should the AP not be able to use information gathered from 19 scientists, merely because 81 scientists never called them back? Should the AP have looked up 100 scientists that they knew disagreed with Gore's movie, just so that they had a strongly negatively biased response? I don't think so.
The AP asked 100 scientists what they thought of the 'facts' presented in the movie. Only 19 would talk to them. Those 19 thought the movie accurate. The AP wrote a story that said that. I don't see a problem here.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, clearly the Senate is having a busy summer.
Between failing to pass such barn-burning acts as the anti-marriage amendment and the anti-freedom amendment, they're ALSO having their staffers write articles to criticize movie reviews. I await Sen. Santorum's angry denunciation of Ebert's response to "A River Runs Through It." Assuming of course he can fit it into his schedule.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Side note: Number one hit when googling Santorum - www.spreadingsantorum.com (<--content may not be suitable for all ages)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Dan Savage's definition of "santorum"?
One of the more immature political stunts I've ever seen.
I'm not sure redefining santorum was intended to do anything other than be humorous, and possibly advertise for Savage Love. I'm sure Dan Savage is aware that making fun of someone is not how you change minds, but is very effective in banding together groups of people across the nation with the same, pre-existing, opinions and sense of humor. I can certainly see, however, how lacking either of those would disallow you to be amused and entertained by spreadingsantorum.com.
Also, for some reason I feel the need to add that I'm sure that Dan Savage doesn't give a flying duck if you think his methods are immature. Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is global warming a political issue? I mean, its like saying that HIV is a political issue, and what we do about it will depend on who has their say?
Can't we just take our heads out of our butts and examine the evidence, TOGETHER, and not either freak out and crap our pants, or try to deny what is obvious? Gah, this whole thing is so STUPID.
By the way, I recently read that scientific thought progresses through three stages:
1. First deny that it is true
2. Second deny that it is important
3. Give credit to the wrong person
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seperate the 'whole' issue into parts. There's the science and the politics.
The bridge between the two is the debate over what (if any) policies are enactable, enforcable, can actually help the climate, and involve something which the major emitting parties can coopt into.
The science attempts to inform that policy, but it's ultimately up to world powers to determine what can reasonably be enacted as a 'solution.'
Should one exist, workable or otherwise.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
