part in Climate Change? ... Then why has there been such disproportionate representation of the pollution profiteers that oppose this conclusion? Seems that for at least the past decade any nut who opposes this viewpoint can get corporate sponsorship, and access to television air time on any of the corporate media "news" outlets we have in the US.
Shouldn't fair and balanced news reporting reflect reality, and mean that there should be about a 19 to 1 representation weight to the viewpoint of Climatologists, and Scientists (as opposed to what we have now which I would say is about 2 to 1 against science) ? How many times have we heard politicians or blow hards with no credentials spout nonsense on this topic without even one expert to refute their wild, unsubstantiated, and inaccurate statements? Or now, wild accusations of the context of a sentence or two from illegally obtained emails... without the email originator present to provide context, or an explanation (as if they should even have to, if the emails were illegally obtained).
Should corporate dollars really be more important when determining what message is allowed air time on television news outlets, and in the media?
"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. "
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
Shouldn't fair and balanced news reporting reflect reality, and mean that there should be about a 19 to 1 representation weight to the viewpoint of Climatologists, and Scientists (as opposed to what we have now which I would say is about 2 to 1 against science) ? How many times have we heard politicians or blow hards with no credentials spout nonsense on this topic without even one expert to refute their wild, unsubstantiated, and inaccurate statements? Or now, wild accusations of the context of a sentence or two from illegally obtained emails... without the email originator present to provide context, or an explanation (as if they should even have to, if the emails were illegally obtained).
Should corporate dollars really be more important when determining what message is allowed air time on television news outlets, and in the media?
"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. "
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/