President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[hoagiepete]

The libs love to call GW's bad decisions based on inaccurate information, lies.

If you want a more accurate example of "lying", check out Mr. Al Gore. If he lies this bad about his cash machine, global warming...err...climate change...whatever it is called today...imagine how bad he would have lied had he become president.

I guess I understand how the libs feel about GW as everytime I see Al on tv, he makes me so sick I have to turn the channel. He is a hypocrite of the largest proporation. A lying one at that. He must be picking up the slack for Letterman's staff givng BJs for as much as he's on his show.

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record
Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 at 12:02am

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... the_record


Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:


Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

[Lula]

The libs love to call GW's bad decisions based on inaccurate information, lies.

If you want a more accurate example of "lying", check out Mr. Al Gore. If he lies this bad about his cash machine, global warming...err...climate change...whatever it is called today...imagine how bad he would have lied had he become president.

And just how many American and Iraqi mothers and fathers are childless this holiday season as a result of private citizen Gore's environmental dogma?
Yeh, that's what I thought.
What a glib, tasteless comparison.

[hoagiepete]

The libs love to call GW's bad decisions based on inaccurate information, lies.
If you want a more accurate example of "lying", check out Mr. Al Gore. If he lies this bad about his cash machine, global warming...err...climate change...whatever it is called today...imagine how bad he would have lied had he become president.

And just how many American and Iraqi mothers and fathers are childless this holiday season as a result of private citizen Gore's environmental dogma?
Yeh, that's what I thought.
What a glib, distasteful comparison.

Glib maybe...distasteful...whatever.

I think you missed my point. It had nothing to do with war. Just that there has been creative use of the word "lie" and Al Gore is a frickin lying, hypocritical piece of shit. Period. Good job of doing the typical lib approach of ignoring the point being made and going into attack mode on the messenger.

Not to demean nor compare at all the sacrifices made by our fine men and women in the armed services (as I have family and friends that are active), but I'll get back to you when the impact of Gore's BS hits our economy and mothers and fathers have no jobs and children get no Christmas presents because the US is no longer able to compete in a global market. Oh wait...that won't happen because the government will take care of us. Presents for all!!! F'n A!

By the way, its dog shit, not dogma.

[7 Wishes]

A CNN poll conducted this week proved that 80% of earth scientists and 85% of forensic environmental scientists still believe in global warming. So, no, Al Gore didn't lie, Peter.

[Saint John]

And just how many American and Iraqi mothers and fathers are childless this holiday season

Tough decisions needed to be made. Don't play the sympathy card. We saw Clinton dismiss bin Laden as a useless goof training towel heads in the desert. He had several chances to have him gunned down, but didn't want to "harm the economy." How'd that turn out? And you expect a president after him to let a fucking maniac that murdered hundreds of thousands of his own play shell games with enough biological and chemical weapons to kill millions? Oh, wait, I forgot...he told us he got rid of them.

[hoagiepete]

A CNN poll conducted this week proved that 80% of earth scientists and 85% of forensic environmental scientists still believe in global warming. So, no, Al Gore didn't lie, Peter.

and he's not a hypocrite either I suppose

and we are to trust the CNN poll as being "scientific?" A CNN poll. Wow. Now that's pretty convincing evidence that Al Gore didn't lie. Probably the same type of science as called out by the emails.

Give me a break.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Tough decisions needed to be made. Don't play the sympathy card. We saw Clinton dismiss bin Laden as a useless goof training towel heads in the desert. He had several chances to have him gunned down, but didn't want to "harm the economy."

And when Clinton DID go after Osama, Repubs accused him of diverting attention from Monicagate and ridiculed the missile strikes as "wag the dog."
To pretend that this country was screaming for pre-emptive military action while Clinton was out intern chubby chasing is pure fiction.
This is even evident in the 2000 election, when the GOP ran on, (NO, not putting Osama’s head on a White House fence post), but on an almost doveish platform of "no nation building."
Many Americans didn't even know what an Osama Bin Laden was until 9-11.

How'd that turn out? And you expect a president after him to let a fucking maniac that murdered hundreds of thousands of his own play shell games with enough biological and chemical weapons to kill millions? Oh, wait, I forgot...he told us he got rid of them.

Some of the hijackers were already on CIA watch lists before 9-11.
That should tell you that our intelligence agencies, while not perfect, were doing something right.
It certainly doesn't warrant a full scale invasion of a Middle Eastern country completely unrelated to the attacks
You wanna talk about welfare?
What do you think we’re doing over there right now?
We’re re-building their electric grid, water and sanitation systems, schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc.
If my money is going to be spent, I’d rather have it improve the lives of everyday Americans.
Print it on a bumper sticker or blow it up to banner size and strew it across the USS Abraham Lincoln– welfare for Americans, not Iraqis.

[7 Wishes]

and we are to trust the CNN poll as being "scientific?" A CNN poll.

It was a gallup poll, moron.

[Saint John]

and we are to trust the CNN poll as being "scientific?" A CNN poll.

It was a gallup poll, moron.

You sure? "The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois..."

[7 Wishes]

Well, this was two days ago. The numbers may have shifted. Anyway, at this point, I'm just going to continue to recycle and try to minimize my carbon footprint, whether or not global warming is fallacious. It can't hurt.

[hoagiepete]

and we are to trust the CNN poll as being "scientific?" A CNN poll.

It was a gallup poll, moron.

Call me a moron if you want but what does any "poll" have to do with the fact that Gore was lying in his quotes, the point from my original post?

Checked out CNN and the only polls listed were done by their own Opinion Research Corp., the most recent that indicates growing public skeptism. Searched Gallop and all they had was polls that a growing number of people that think the research on human's impact on the climate is being exaggerated.

Staying on point...

Was Gore lying?
Is Gore a hypocrite?
How did Gore make his millions to invest in all this and pay for his mansion anyway? A senator's salary of $174,000? VP salary of $227,300?

Is he a greasy sleezeball? Sorry I digress.

If the climate change folks want a chance, they need a different spokeperson.

[RedWingFan]

what the hell you talkin' 'bout?

This photo is about as real as man-made global warming! Typical liberal deception to try to sway an argument instead of facts.

[separate_wayz]

and we are to trust the CNN poll as being "scientific?" A CNN poll.

It was a gallup poll, moron.

You sure? "The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois..."

This is not a new 'study' -- it's been hanging out there for nearly a year. And the content of the study begs for closer scrutiny.

CNN reported (not this past week -- but instead originally in January 2009) that 3146 members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) were surveyed regarding their thoughts on global warming. CNN's reporting was itself based on a survey published in an AGU journal, Eos (P. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman, Eos 90, 20 Jan 2009, pp. 22-23).

The first question in the survey is truly amazing in its bias.

1. Has the climate warmed, cooled, or remained constant -- compared to pre-1800?

Now, what's amazing about this question is that the answer must be: "warming". Why? Because prior to 1800, the Earth was under what was called the Little Ice Age. So of course the answer must be "warming", just like the answer must be "cooling" if the year was switched to 1998. The answer stands as "warming" regardless of whether one believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW, or human-caused global warming) or not.

Now here's question two.

2. Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing global mean temperature?

Here "human activity" is not defined (urbanization? land changes? agriculture? irrigation? deforestation?), nor is the word "significant". Someone could answer "yes", even if they don't think that greenhouse gases are a significant factor in climate change (which is the whole argument of AGW).

But here's something more curious about question #2. The widely quoted statistic for question #2 is that 97.4% answered 'yes' to that question. But this number isn't based on 3146 members of the AGU -- it's based on just 77 responses from 'actively publishing climate scientists'.

77??

So .... 75 out of 77 of responding 'actively publishing climate scientists' answered 'yes' to this question. Huh. You'll forgive me for being utterly unimpressed. The number of prominent international scientists dissenting on global warming (especially AGW) is far more than this.

[Lula]

what the hell you talkin' 'bout?

This photo is about as real as man-made global warming! Typical liberal deception to try to sway an argument instead of facts.

Gimme a break…
True, in reality, Bush didn’t so much swap spit with the Saudi prince, as he pecked both cheeks and held hands as they went for a stroll.
Why, that is just sooo much more dignified.
Such public displays of affection in the Prince’s homeland, by the way, are usually punishable by stoning. No wonder he seized the opportunity to get down with his nasty self.

Any of you self-professed "protocol" experts care to explain the difference between planting a face kiss, a cheek kiss, or giving a patented deep Obama bow?
LMAO.

[hoagiepete]

and we are to trust the CNN poll as being "scientific?" A CNN poll.

It was a gallup poll, moron.

You sure? "The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois..."

This is not a new 'study' -- it's been hanging out there for nearly a year. And the content of the study begs for closer scrutiny.

CNN reported (not this past week -- but instead originally in January 2009) that 3146 members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) were surveyed regarding their thoughts on global warming. CNN's reporting was itself based on a survey published in an AGU journal, Eos (P. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman, Eos 90, 20 Jan 2009, pp. 22-23).

The first question in the survey is truly amazing in its bias.

1. Has the climate warmed, cooled, or remained constant -- compared to pre-1800?

Now, what's amazing about this question is that the answer must be: "warming". Why? Because prior to 1800, the Earth was under what was called the Little Ice Age. So of course the answer must be "warming", just like the answer must be "cooling" if the year was switched to 1998. The answer stands as "warming" regardless of whether one believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW, or human-caused global warming) or not.

Now here's question two.

2. Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing global mean temperature?

Here "human activity" is not defined (urbanization? land changes? agriculture? irrigation? deforestation?), nor is the word "significant". Someone could answer "yes", even if they don't think that greenhouse gases are a significant factor in climate change (which is the whole argument of AGW).

But here's something more curious about question #2. The widely quoted statistic for question #2 is that 97.4% answered 'yes' to that question. But this number isn't based on 3146 members of the AGU -- it's based on just 77 responses from 'actively publishing climate scientists'.

77??

So .... 75 out of 77 of responding 'actively publishing climate scientists' answered 'yes' to this question. Huh. You'll forgive me for being utterly unimpressed. The number of prominent international scientists dissenting on global warming (especially AGW) is far more than this.

Wow...I guess I am a Mo Ron!

Thanks for tracking this down.

Slanted and directed polling to get the desired outcome has been occuring for decades and is done so often, I can't believe anyone believes them...on both sides of most issues.

[7 Wishes]

Way to cherrypick. Unbelievable.

[Monker]

You wanna talk about welfare?
What do you think we’re doing over there right now?
We’re re-building their electric grid, water and sanitation systems, schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc.
If my money is going to be spent, I’d rather have it improve the lives of everyday Americans.

Gee, I was arguing that point shortly after the war started. How unpatriotic of you. That's basicaly the typical response back the...when people thought we would only be in Iraq for a few weeks.

[Monker]

Yeah, well, at least they can add. FOX News can't even do that when they want to spin things their way:

and we are to trust the CNN poll as being "scientific?" A CNN poll.

It was a gallup poll, moron.

You sure? "The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois..."

This is not a new 'study' -- it's been hanging out there for nearly a year. And the content of the study begs for closer scrutiny.

CNN reported (not this past week -- but instead originally in January 2009) that 3146 members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) were surveyed regarding their thoughts on global warming. CNN's reporting was itself based on a survey published in an AGU journal, Eos (P. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman, Eos 90, 20 Jan 2009, pp. 22-23).

The first question in the survey is truly amazing in its bias.

1. Has the climate warmed, cooled, or remained constant -- compared to pre-1800?

Now, what's amazing about this question is that the answer must be: "warming". Why? Because prior to 1800, the Earth was under what was called the Little Ice Age. So of course the answer must be "warming", just like the answer must be "cooling" if the year was switched to 1998. The answer stands as "warming" regardless of whether one believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW, or human-caused global warming) or not.

Now here's question two.

2. Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing global mean temperature?

Here "human activity" is not defined (urbanization? land changes? agriculture? irrigation? deforestation?), nor is the word "significant". Someone could answer "yes", even if they don't think that greenhouse gases are a significant factor in climate change (which is the whole argument of AGW).

But here's something more curious about question #2. The widely quoted statistic for question #2 is that 97.4% answered 'yes' to that question. But this number isn't based on 3146 members of the AGU -- it's based on just 77 responses from 'actively publishing climate scientists'.

77??

So .... 75 out of 77 of responding 'actively publishing climate scientists' answered 'yes' to this question. Huh. You'll forgive me for being utterly unimpressed. The number of prominent international scientists dissenting on global warming (especially AGW) is far more than this.

Wow...I guess I am a Mo Ron!

Thanks for tracking this down.

Slanted and directed polling to get the desired outcome has been occuring for decades and is done so often, I can't believe anyone believes them...on both sides of most issues.

[separate_wayz]

Yeah, well, at least they can add. FOX News can't even do that when they want to spin things their way:

Fox News is guilty of mediocre t.v. graphics and nothing else.

In response to the question "Did scientists falsify research to support their own theories on global warming?", the actual Rasmussen poll results were:

35% Very likely
24% Somewhat likely
26% Somewhat unlikely / very unlikely
15% Don't know

The Fox News graphic was based on an article that added the top two figures together (35% + 24%) and reported it as "fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."

No story here.

[7 Wishes]

Fox News is guilty of mediocre t.v. graphics and nothing else.

You are, without a doubt, the most brainwashed among the zombified legions of dittoheads who routinely opine and cut and paste on this forum. If you're naiive enough to believe this, you're a lost cause.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

According to the results of a 2006 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism a survey of 547 journalists, found that FOX was most frequently cited by surveyed journalists as an outlet taking an ideological stance in its coverage, and most identified as advocating conservative political positions,[33] with 56% of national journalists citing Fox News as being especially conservative in its coverage of news. Additionally FOX was viewed as having the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.

Research has shown that there is a correlation between the presence of the Fox News Channel in cable markets and increases in Republican votes in those markets.[38]

The documentary Outfoxed claims that FOX reporters and anchors use the traditional journalistic phrase "some people say" in a very clever way; instead of citing an anonymous source in order to advance a storyline, FOX personalities allegedly use the phrase to inject conservative opinion and commentary into reports. In the film, Media Matters for America president David Brock noted that some shows, like FOX's evening news program, Special Report with Brit Hume, tend to exhibit editorializing attitudes and behavior when on the air.

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA),[39] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company, and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions:[40]

67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of FOX viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS) .


Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, a documentary film on Fox News by liberal activist Robert Greenwald, makes allegations of bias in Fox News by interviewing a number of former employees who discuss the network's practices. For example, Frank O'Donnell, identified as a "Fox News producer", says: "We were stunned, because up until that point, we were allowed to do legitimate news. Suddenly, we were ordered from the top to carry [...] Republican, right-wing propaganda", including being told what to say about Ronald Reagan. The network made an official response[110] and claimed that four of the individuals identified as employees of Fox News either were not employees (O'Donnell, e.g., worked for an affiliate over which Fox News claims to have no editorial authority) or had their titles inflated.[111]
CNN founder Ted Turner accused Fox News of being "dumbed down" and "propaganda" and equated the network's popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1930's Germany, during a speech to the National Association of Television Program Executives.[112] In response, a Fox News spokesperson said "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network, and now his mind. We wish him well." The Anti-Defamation League, to whom Turner had apologized in the past for a similar comparison, said Turner is "a recidivist who hasn't learned from his past mistakes."[113]
Progressive media watchdog group Media Matters criticized Your World with Neil Cavuto for its focus on soft news stories. The show is targeted for its coverage of missing women, troubled celebrities, and gratuitous footage and photos of scantily clad supermodels and porn stars.[114]

[separate_wayz]

Fox News is guilty of mediocre t.v. graphics and nothing else.

You are, without a doubt, the most brainwashed among the zombified legions of dittoheads who routinely opine and cut and paste on this forum. If you're naiive enough to believe this, you're a lost cause.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

According to the results of a 2006 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism a survey of 547 journalists, found that FOX was most frequently cited by surveyed journalists as an outlet taking an ideological stance in its coverage, and most identified as advocating conservative political positions,[33] with 56% of national journalists citing Fox News as being especially conservative in its coverage of news. Additionally FOX was viewed as having the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.

Research has shown that there is a correlation between the presence of the Fox News Channel in cable markets and increases in Republican votes in those markets.[38]

The documentary Outfoxed claims that FOX reporters and anchors use the traditional journalistic phrase "some people say" in a very clever way; instead of citing an anonymous source in order to advance a storyline, FOX personalities allegedly use the phrase to inject conservative opinion and commentary into reports. In the film, Media Matters for America president David Brock noted that some shows, like FOX's evening news program, Special Report with Brit Hume, tend to exhibit editorializing attitudes and behavior when on the air.

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA),[39] in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company, and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions:[40]

67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of FOX viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS) .


Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, a documentary film on Fox News by liberal activist Robert Greenwald, makes allegations of bias in Fox News by interviewing a number of former employees who discuss the network's practices. For example, Frank O'Donnell, identified as a "Fox News producer", says: "We were stunned, because up until that point, we were allowed to do legitimate news. Suddenly, we were ordered from the top to carry [...] Republican, right-wing propaganda", including being told what to say about Ronald Reagan. The network made an official response[110] and claimed that four of the individuals identified as employees of Fox News either were not employees (O'Donnell, e.g., worked for an affiliate over which Fox News claims to have no editorial authority) or had their titles inflated.[111]
CNN founder Ted Turner accused Fox News of being "dumbed down" and "propaganda" and equated the network's popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1930's Germany, during a speech to the National Association of Television Program Executives.[112] In response, a Fox News spokesperson said "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network, and now his mind. We wish him well." The Anti-Defamation League, to whom Turner had apologized in the past for a similar comparison, said Turner is "a recidivist who hasn't learned from his past mistakes."[113]
Progressive media watchdog group Media Matters criticized Your World with Neil Cavuto for its focus on soft news stories. The show is targeted for its coverage of missing women, troubled celebrities, and gratuitous footage and photos of scantily clad supermodels and porn stars.[114]

I find your obvious mental retardation annoying, albeit quite amusing.

My reference that you cited was to the screen-shot and commentary in a previous post. If you can't follow the discussion, I can refer you to several remedial reading programs that you repeatedly demonstrate you could benefit from.

In regard to your current screed, I find it yawningly unimpressive. You cite (cut and pasted, in fact) a litany of obviously biased mouth-pieces for leftwing nonsense, to wit: Media Matters and Ted Turner, whom as you mention (in your cut-and-paste) has repeatedly offended the Anti-Defamation League by his frequent name-calling of anyone who disagrees with him as a Nazi or Hitler-clone. (You'll have to forgive Ted -- he's often off his meds.)

Your citation (cut and paste) of the survey done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism is meaningless and (by definition) totally subjective. Rather than analyzing the content of Fox News news programs, the survey asks other journalists what their opinion of Fox News is. Who cares? Peer-reviewed academic research (over 20+ years) has repeatedly demonstrated the liberal/leftwing viewpoints of journalists, so it's of no importance (and not enlightening) to know that a majority dislike Fox News. (And yes, I can provide citations of the research upon request.) As I previously provided, here is the link to a peer-reviewed academic paper that analyzes the content of various news outlets and concludes that Fox News news programs are indeed "fair and balanced". And I'll anticipate your one objection: it analyzes news programs on Fox and other networks, not commentary programs.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/facu ... Bias.8.htm

If you need any help with the big words, I'll volunteer my efforts.

[Monker]

First of all, adding the "top two numbers together" IS spin. Then to report it as a "Rasmussen poll", instead of a "we're using a modifiid poll to better support our political views" poll is misleading and biased. If they are going to do all of this politicizing of the news, they should at least be able to check their graphics to ensure their reporting on 'modified' polls add up to %100. How completely stupid.

Unless, of course, they are reporting on Hitler's research on people from Poland and then making some type of comparison to Obama...I spose that type of 'modified pole' is OK, and more consistent with their obvious biases.

Yeah, well, at least they can add. FOX News can't even do that when they want to spin things their way:

Fox News is guilty of mediocre t.v. graphics and nothing else.

In response to the question "Did scientists falsify research to support their own theories on global warming?", the actual Rasmussen poll results were:

35% Very likely
24% Somewhat likely
26% Somewhat unlikely / very unlikely
15% Don't know

The Fox News graphic was based on an article that added the top two figures together (35% + 24%) and reported it as "fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."

No story here.

[separate_wayz]

First of all, adding the "top two numbers together" IS spin.

No, it isn't. It's simple polling aggregation and completely acceptable: total favorables (or "likely's") versus total unfavorables (or "unlikely's"). It's done in polling all the time.

Then to report it as a "Rasmussen poll", instead of a "we're using a modifiid poll to better support our political views" poll is misleading and biased. If they are going to do all of this politicizing of the news, they should at least be able to check their graphics to ensure their reporting on 'modified' polls add up to %100. How completely stupid.

It is a Rasmussen poll. Fox News's data presentation was confusing, but not incorrect. Nothing was modified (or "modifiid").

Unless, of course, they are reporting on Hitler's research on people from Poland and then making some type of comparison to Obama...I spose that type of 'modified pole' is OK, and more consistent with their obvious biases.

Oddball .... see my previous comments above on Ted Turner taking his medications.

[7 Wishes]

YOUR "study" is itself FAR MORE inherently biased than any CNN poll.

Additionally, it's over five years old...

Try again, dittohead.

[separate_wayz]

YOUR "study" is itself FAR MORE inherently biased than any CNN poll.

Additionally, it's over five years old...

Try again, dittohead.

Lame reply. Putting something IN ALL CAPS doesn't make it any more true .... f.y.i.

The paper I referenced was published in the November 2005 'Quarterly Journal of Economics', which is one of the flagship economic journals. The publication date is suitably contemporary.

Anything else, or was that your entire rebuttal?

[7 Wishes]

Whatever, dittohead. I just provided numerous links and information from impartial sources that dwarf that one "unbiased study" to which you so astutely refer.

You're as full of factoids and misinformation as Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Katz, and O'Reilly. Keep digging, son. You're bound to find gold underneath that proverbial intellectual sinkhole in which you dwell.

[Monker]

Whatever, dittohead. I just provided numerous links and information from impartial sources that dwarf that one "unbiased study" to which you so astutely refer.

You're as full of factoids and misinformation as Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Katz, and O'Reilly. Keep digging, son. You're bound to find gold underneath that proverbial intellectual sinkhole in which you dwell.

Well, of course they are going to find gold. Glenn Beck will even sell it to them:

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/jon-stewart ... ging-gold/

[Monker]

It is a Rasmussen poll. Fox News's data presentation was confusing, but not incorrect. Nothing was modified (or "modifiid").

What a completely STOOPID comment! You are telling that a 'poll' adding up to %120 is 'confusing, but not incorrect'. It was WRONG. They added the two together, and removed the wrong one. An OBVIOUS mistake...indefinsible.

[separate_wayz]

It is a Rasmussen poll. Fox News's data presentation was confusing, but not incorrect. Nothing was modified (or "modifiid").

What a completely STOOPID comment! You are telling that a 'poll' adding up to %120 is 'confusing, but not incorrect'. It was WRONG. They added the two together, and removed the wrong one. An OBVIOUS mistake...indefinsible.

See previous comment on remedial reading programs.

Spelling indefensible 'indefinsible' ..... "an OBVIOUS mistake".

[The_Noble_Cause]

As I previously provided, here is the link to a peer-reviewed academic paper that analyzes the content of various news outlets and concludes that Fox News news programs are indeed "fair and balanced". And I'll anticipate your one objection: it analyzes news programs on Fox and other networks, not commentary programs.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/facu ... Bias.8.htm

If you need any help with the big words, I'll volunteer my efforts.

Actually, the study looked at all of ONE, yes, just one, Fox News program.
The admittedly pretty fair "Special Report", formerly with Brett Hume.
If your goal was to imply that Fox airs only one bias-free hour in a 24-hr news cycle, I commend you. Job well done.
More important, the study defined bias by looking at what think tanks were cited per news show and newspaper.
That’s certainly a valid indicator of bias, but by itself, doesn’t conclusively add up to anything.
A fact that the study even acknowledged by saying:
“Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet.”
In other words, this study did not count lies vs. facts.
For that matter, it also didn't look at the number of right wing guests vs. liberal guests, or break down the ideological content of stories.
By the study’s own very narrow bias test, the conservative Wall Street Journal ranked as “the most liberal of all 20 news outlets.”
Just for comparison, imagine if I posted a media study that ranked the New York Times as the most conservative media outlet, what would you think?
Even taking into consideration that editorials weren’t included in the study’s sample, this doesn’t add up.
Revealingly, in trying to explain it away, the study resorts to using “anecdotal” information, (not exactly scientific method there), claiming that, apparently, conservatives have managed to infiltrate the Journal’s editorial board room, while dope smoking Marxists are still running the news department.
Yeah, ok.
More likely, this is a classic example of a narrow data sample leading to skewed results (the ACLU being ranked as Conservative further confirms this).
Evidently, the Wall Street Journal thought so too - http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10808

One would hope, after being caught lying your red monkey neocon ass off about "protcol" and now this, you will actually stop and research your claims from here out.