Why does Fox News post irresponsible stories like "The Greenhouse Myth"?

Question

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html . T Steven Milloy makes the absurd claim that "The notion that our atmosphere acts like a greenhouse – that is, so-called atmospheric “greenhouse gases,” like water vapor and CO2, “trap” incoming solar radiation to warm the atmosphere – is wrong. Not only doesn’t the atmosphere work that way, greenhouses don’t either."

That is just plain wrong. Why would Fox News publish something like that? It is blatantly wrong. Greenhouses work exactly that way. Milloy goes on to claim that the only way greenhouses retain heat is by preventing convection. While it is true that convection is important, radiation is just as important. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_greenhouse_%28technical%29

The article is a blatant lie, but my question is why? Does Milloy think his conservative readers are so stupid that they will not recognize how absurd his claims are? Is he right?

Answer 1

Well laid out question.

Fox news is run by an Australian named Murdock, who also owns over 150 other media ventures, newspapers, radio, broadcasting, ect... Your man Milloy is just the spokesman for the lies that come straight from Murdock, who of course has ties to big business and you guessed it... the Bush family and fellow cronies. He has an almost limitless bankroll, and can get away with just about anything he wants. It's called "the spin".

Fact and fiction are so blurred to most of middle America, because of men like these, and your average person doesn't bother to check references, choosing to believe whichever view is more convenient, or you could say more American. The media knows this, and the media is controlled by the people who control the money, who in turn control the politicians, who in turn feed you all the bullshit you are talking about in your question. I can guarantee you that if you get into a political discussion with most Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, ect... news watchers, they will all quote the same lines that they recently heard on the news. Word for word. Without analyzing or fact-checking.

In essence, the news should have a disclaimer, and just might in all that small print... "FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY!"



There is a documentery on this guy Murdock, though I haven't seen it. Might answer some questions. It's called:

Outfoxed: Murdochs War on Journallism.

Answer 2

Technically, Milloy is correct. That said, YES...we have observed about 1 degree of warming in the last century and yes we have likely contributed to that warming.

However....Drawing a distinction between the functioning of a greenhouse and the atmosphere is more than a pedantic exercise. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not tantamount to turning the troposphere into a blackbody cavity bounded by a hot layer of plastic.

If we agree to use the term 'greenhouse effect' in when refering to the way the concentrations of various gasses alter the radiative equilibrium of the atmosphere, it is worthwhile to remind people of exactly how we use the term.

More importantly, we shouldn't make overstatements that data simply do not support. A particular former senator has made a habit of doing just that for many years.

Answer 3

Well, the article technically isn't a lie. The "greenhouse effect" can in fact be more accurately be explained as CO2's preventing the earth's radiation from reaching space, not the sun's. But where does the earth's radiation come from? The sun. It's one in a long line of half-truths conservative spin-makers rely on to confuse the public and obsucre the liberally biased "fact-based" agenda. Just ask Stephen Colbert.

Answer 4

The wikipedia article isn't specific enough to address the issues in the Fox article. I'm specifically referring to the "layers of blinds" analogy. Here's what I want to see: What concentration of atmospheric CO2 (or other greenhouse gas) correlates to what percent of radiant energy being held in? Perhaps the article is correct. I know the historical evidence says it's wrong, but something more scientific (like a supercomputer simulation) would be nice too.

Answer 5

Propoganda pays well. Also, one can feel superior to the experts on an issue without actually learning about a subject by speaking in this manner. Basically, these people are looking for ego and bank account boosts. It really has nothing to do with an understanding of the issue.

Answer 6

Fox News is run by a group of people with a conservative view of the world. Free market economy and making a profit are second only to god and country. What else would you expect.

"Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine..."

Answer 7

because people like that view global warming as a threat to big business, especially oil companies. They make bullshit claims like that we're just on the hot end of a cyclical warming and cooling period but anyone who even looks at the statistics realizes that the warming period is so far off the historical trends it would take an idiot not to notice it.

Answer 8

Have you ever seen the movie, "Wag The Dog"?

Essentially there is a White House scandal and to cover it up, Hollywood produces a "war" on their sets and then air it as news. HMMMM. Makes one think!

What's really going on in the world or our Country? Why are we being spoon fed articles like the one you point out?

Answer 9

You need to understand that the media plays to the masses and their belief system not to facts necessarily. Look at how popular horror movies are. So mystery of any sort, truthful or not, will pull in the general public and of course the sponsors with their millions.

Answer 10

That's easy. A congressional inquiry found nouthing. But you cons just go right on spitting on the dead body of Ambassador Stevens.