"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Monday, May 10, 2010

Stanford University Finds Goebbels Was Right.

"When you lose a debate you shouldn't blame it on the other side turning up"
More taxpayer money has been wasted on "research" showing that when you show two points of view the public thinks there are two points of view ( duh!)and that is basically what Stanford University researchers found when investigating how climate skeptics affect public opinion. Nazi Germany newspapers had only one opinion which would have solved the problem for these alarmists.It would be more appropriate to examine why a minority of people are still being fooled by the Global warming scam.

Stanford University researchers have released a working paper reporting a new study, which documents how climate change skeptics can affect Americans' thinking about climate change.
 News media coverage of global warming has often offered "balanced" accounts, quoting mainstream scientists and skeptics in the same story. Balanced accounts might be considered admirable efforts to abide by the journalistic norms of objectivity and fairness.

However, critics have noted that balanced reporting of this particular issue actually conveys a misleading portrait of the science of climate change, since scientists endorsing the mainstream view appear to outnumber skeptics.
Our study explored the impact of including skeptical voices in news media coverage. In particular, we explored whether adding a skeptic to a story about a mainstream scientist's views or findings would reduce the number of people who perceive agreement among scientific experts on this issue and think global warming is a serious problem.

Results

Viewing an interview with a mainstream scientist only increased the number of people who believed that global warming has been happening and that humans have caused global warming.
Adding the skeptic to the mainstream scientific message significantly reduced the number of people who endorsed a variety of beliefs and attitudes.

Conclusion
The news stories that respondents watched featured the views of only one skeptic and made no claims about the prevalence of such skeptical views. Nonetheless, respondents generalized from a single skeptic to scientists more generally, perceiving less agreement in the scientific community broadly. Our findings suggest that balanced news coverage may have been at least partly responsible for discrepancies between the American public and the scientific community on issues of climate change.

 Summarising, the research says balanced news coverage is the cause of public skepticism on Global warming , not the fact that the public can think for themselves and the Warmist arguments are not convincing. I don't know where these ninnies were finding the balanced news coverage they are worried  about - certainly not in the MSM.  Goebbels only allowed one view to be published and that certainly controlled public opinion although I doubt he conducted  many surveys on the wisdom of allowing other views. It is obvious that for the Global Warming Fourth Reich to achieve world domination similar controls will have to be exerted on the media.Sieg Heil!

No comments:

Post a Comment