As many have long suspected:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

12/16/2010 11:00:27 AM

does this really need another thread? In other news the sky is blue

MSNBC would be there too if anybody actually watched that network

12/16/2010 11:10:18 AM

Quote :

"Wolfey Resident Asshole 1288 Posts user info edit post"

12/16/2010 11:59:25 AM

^^ Forgive me I didn't see this study referenced anywhere else resident asshat

12/16/2010 12:27:43 PM

what, were the 50 other Fox News threads not good enough for this less-than-groundbreaking news?

and for the record, your "study" is just another opinion poll




[Edited on December 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2010 12:52:54 PM

A poll that clearly shows a correlation of misinformation about basic facts and the reliance on Fox News for information.

12/16/2010 1:13:46 PM

12/16/2010 1:20:15 PM

FYI

Your "study" actually shows the highest percentage of misinformation on a topic from a news source to be perpetuated by MSNBC

Maybe you should make a new topic that says User adder Leads to Misinformation

12/16/2010 1:54:21 PM

You have to make a new thread? You couldn't just put it in this other adder thread?

message_topic.aspx?topic=441058

12/16/2010 2:01:14 PM

Quote :

"poll that clearly shows a correlation perception of misinformation"

fixed it for you.

i dislike Fox News as much as the next guy, but you need to GTFO with that weak shit.

12/16/2010 2:41:54 PM

Quote :

"Your "study" actually shows the highest percentage of misinformation on a topic from a news source to be perpetuated by MSNBC"

On a single topic yes. It was actually more interesting to note how the US mass media seemingly contributes to the dissemination of misinformation. Very pertinent to the Wikileaks discussion actually.

12/16/2010 3:08:55 PM

Doublepost destroy

[Edited on December 16, 2010 at 3:10 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/16/2010 3:09:50 PM

this just in: new channel may be biased!!!

12/16/2010 4:33:33 PM

Quote :

"It was actually more interesting to note how the US mass media seemingly contributes to the dissemination of misinformation"

but not interesting enough to make that the thread title.

Seems your motives are just the same as the mass media that you are criticizing.
The real story, or the truth, is not enough to get people to pay attention to you - so you come up with some other sensationalist story to get people to look at your thread (or boost ratings/profits)

12/16/2010 5:33:12 PM

Actually if you bother to read the results you will find that the most consistently misinformed viewers are the Fox news viewers which is exactly what I posted.

For those of you unable to process information this sums it up nicely:
"There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased
misinformation on a specific issue.
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never
watched it to believe that:
? most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
? most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
? the economy is getting worse (26 points)
? most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
? the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
? their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
? the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
? when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
? and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically
significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted
Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those
who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
There were cases with some other news sources as well.
? Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points
and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce
was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates.
? Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP
was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most
Republicans oppose TARP.
All of these effects were statistically significant. "



[Edited on December 16, 2010 at 5:56 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

[Edited on December 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ?=bullet point]

12/16/2010 5:46:59 PM

no, you'll find that the author only notes the FoxNews misinformed more. but, let's look at those points...

most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit: uncertain outcome.
the economy is getting worse: uncertain outcome.
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring: dubious question. Most scientists might agree, but most scientists polled are not qualified to have an opinion. When we look at climate scientists, there is quite the discussion.
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States: misleading question as well. it's one thing to say it's not clear (which it isn't. if it were clear, there would be no question). it's another to say that he's from Nigeria.
Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. : not foxnews? wat?
Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP. : not foxnews? wat?

12/16/2010 7:47:10 PM

Quote :

"A poll that clearly shows a correlation of misinformation about basic facts and the reliance on Fox News for information. "

exactly...a correlation, not an established causal relationship.

12/16/2010 7:56:27 PM

Quote :

"and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States: misleading question as well. it's one thing to say it's not clear (which it isn't. if it were clear, there would be no question). it's another to say that he's from Nigeria."

It's irrelevant where Obama was born. His mother was a US citizen, therefore, he would be considered a naturalized citizen. And just because some idiots question it, doesn't mean it's not clear. People have been questioning the citizenship of presidents for years.

12/16/2010 8:14:26 PM

Quote :

" exactly...a correlation, not an established causal relationship."

you don't need causality, whether fox news causes misinformation or misinformed people flock to fox news it is telling either way

12/16/2010 8:17:38 PM

Quote :

"most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit: uncertain outcome."

However most economists haven't estimated that so why can't these dumbfucks answer the question? It didn't ask for their opinion...

Quote :

"the economy is getting worse: uncertain outcome."

I can agree w/ that because it is asking more for a personal opinion.

Quote :

"most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring: dubious question. Most scientists might agree, but most scientists polled are not qualified to have an opinion. When we look at climate scientists, there is quite the discussion."

Irrelevant because again the question is not "do most climate scientists". Again answer the fucking question dumbfucks.

Quote :

"and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States: misleading question as well. it's one thing to say it's not clear (which it isn't. if it were clear, there would be no question). it's another to say that he's from Nigeria."

If you are a dumbfuck it isn't clear. Most rational people have accepted the legal copy of his birth certificate.

Quote :

"Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. : not foxnews? wat? Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP. : not foxnews? wat?"

So it looks like other networks audiences may be misinformed on some topics however it is interesting that Fox news viewers consistently scored so poorly.

Quote :

"exactly...a correlation, not an established causal relationship."

Yes yes we all understand correlation does not necessarily equal causation however given the nature of the "news" on fox I think we can all agree it isn't surprising that regular viewers are disturbingly uninformed.

Also it is very interesting that democrat voters who used Fox news were still testing as uninformed (to a lesser degree than the republicans).

12/16/2010 9:46:29 PM

Quote :

"you don't need causality, whether fox news causes misinformation or misinformed people flock to fox news it is telling either way"

OK, but the title of the thread was "Fox news leads to misinformation".

Quote :

"however given the nature of the "news" on fox I think we can all agree it isn't surprising that regular viewers are disturbingly uninformed. "

I really don't think Fox is any worse than MSNBC. CNN isn't great, but they're probably the least ridiculous of the three, on average.

What sucks is that MSNBC used to be a good (for cable news) channel. The last several years have really seen them turn into a real cesspool.

12/16/2010 9:55:53 PM

Yup and MSNBC was one of the other news organizations that showed some misinformed viewers. Surprise. Surprise.
You will also see I was the one who rephrased it to correlation. Causation isn't that big of a logical step for most people rational people though given all the parameters previously outlined.
Also

Quote :

"Seems your motives are just the same as the mass media that you are criticizing."

When the fuck did I ever state I wasn't biased? I will even give you a disclaimer that your heroes at Fox don't: DO NOT rely on me or TWW as your primary source of news and information. If you do you will be woefully misinformed about the goings on in the world.
It was my opinion message boards were full of people stating their opinions but I guess not.

12/16/2010 10:07:21 PM

Quote :

"However most economists haven't estimated that so why can't these dumbfucks answer the question?"

Then it's a leading question, which makes it worthless to begin with.

Quote :

"Irrelevant because again the question is not "do most climate scientists"."

then it is, again, a worthless question. Why not ask "what do most ducks think?"

Quote :

"Most rational people have accepted the legal copy of his birth certificate."

Yes, but that is not what is being asked. They asked "is it clear?" Well, you could believe he is a US citizen and still say it's "not clear" that he is one.

Quote :

"So it looks like other networks audiences may be misinformed on some topics however it is interesting that Fox news viewers consistently scored so poorly. "

Or, as I said before, this article just chose to focus on questions that fox viewers "got wrong," even though many of the questions were dubious at best.

Quote :

"Causation isn't that big of a logical step for most people rational people though given all the parameters previously outlined. "

Well, a rational person would require more than correlation to prove causation, which you seem not have required. so, what would that make you?

12/17/2010 12:15:17 AM

Anyone who thinks it is not clear that Obama was born in Hawaii is seriously ignorant. There are things we can disagree over, and even things where it's acceptable to be misinformed (whether TARP created jobs, who began the program, etc.).

The semantic parsing of "it's not clear" is part of the problem here. Anyone who does not categorically, 100% understand that he is in fact a citizen and was born in this country is extremely ignorant, and I would liken to people who think 9/11 was a setup.

Seriously, I don't know you aaronburro, and I'm sure my opinion doesn't mean much at all, but if you genuinely believe what you wrote about the "lack of clarity" on this issue, then it really becomes impossible to take anything else you say seriously. Intelligent people should not be having this debate.

12/17/2010 2:13:32 AM

^^ You obviously don't understand what a leading question is. I guess you are fine with the conclusion that fox news viewers are unable to read and answer questions asked THESE WEREN'T PERSONAL OPINION QUESTIONS AND THAT WAS MADE CLEAR BY THE PHRASING OF THE QUESTION. They didn't ask How do you feel about climate change or how do you feel about the economy.
and ^ is right if you don't feel that Obama's citizenship is clear it is because you are an idiot and have been woefully misinformed by your news source.

Quote :

"Or, as I said before, this article just chose to focus on questions that fox viewers "got wrong," even though many of the questions were dubious at best. "

Actually the article wasn't FOCUSED ON FOX fox was mentioned because those viewers showed the highest level of misinformation over multiple subjects while the other news sources only had one or two questions in which their viewers were shown to be misinformed.
OH and BTW your climate scientist argument is also flawed because the acceptance rate for climate change among climate scientists is around 90% according to Duke University.

Quote :

"Well, a rational person would require more than correlation to prove causation, which you seem not have required. so, what would that make you?"

GIVEN THE PARAMETERS OUTLINED causation is not that huge of a logical step. I think that most people can logically agree that given the information in this poll it seems likely that Fox News is contributing to the spreading of misinformation.

12/17/2010 8:10:48 AM

goddamn, son, are you afraid of the ENTER key? does your service provider charge extra for sending carriage returns? learn how to use whitespace, already.

Anyhow, you can dress this up as a "study" as much as you want, but it's still an opinion poll --and one in which the authors are using to support their own predetermined conclusions. As much as it pains me to agree with burro, those points on which fox viewers are "misinformed" do not have clear answers or consensus.






[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

12/17/2010 12:15:27 PM

Misinformation and the
2010 Election
A Study of the US Electorate

12/17/2010 12:46:01 PM

Quote :

"When the fuck did I ever state I wasn't biased? I will even give you a disclaimer that your heroes at Fox don't: DO NOT rely on me or TWW as your primary source of news and information. If you do you will be woefully misinformed about the goings on in the world. It was my opinion message boards were full of people stating their opinions but I guess not. "

I don't think I said that you were biased. I did say that you were willing, just like the media you complain about, to make up a story or headline just to get people to pay attention to you. You are a self admitted part of the problem.

You asserted yourself that there were more interesting things in the article, but you chose not to make that your topic headline.

You can have your opinion here if you want to - but don't act like that is what you were doing.
You didn't say "I think... Fox news leads to misinformation" You took an opinion article and presented it as a factual study instead of incuding it one of the other opinion threads that have already be created on the subject.

12/17/2010 1:19:01 PM

However it was a study done by the University of Maryland (if UM calls it a study I am going to call it a study) which in the results showed that fox news viewers were misinformed (in comparison to other voters) about many things that were current hot topic issues. Even democrat voters who watched fox news showed similar trends. Again NOT A HUGE FUCKING LOGICAL STEP. Did other networks viewers demonstrate misinformation? Yest BUT NO WHERE NEAR THE DEGREE THAT FOX NEWS VIEWERS DID.

12/17/2010 1:29:59 PM

since you read the actual study contained with in that opinion article you posted...

what were the other percentages of misinformation from news sources other than fox - you know the ones that were not listed in the opinion portion...

what were those figures? To what degree did the other networks show misinformation?

Quote :

"current hot topic issues"

and many of those hot topic issues, as stated before, do not have clear or conclusive answers yet - so i'm not sure how one can be misinformed on something that has not yet been decided.

If you will notice the highest % of "misinformation" comes from those ambiguous questions. The other results all hover around %10 - wouldn't exactly call that a gross number of misinformed people.

12/17/2010 2:24:07 PM

their polling methods are skewed.

Quote :

"Fox News Poll: Most Americans Support Arrests in WikiLeaks' Document Release Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/fox-news-poll-americans-support-arrests-wikileaks-document-release/#ixzz18Op7snxB"

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/121710_wikileaks_web.pdf

Polling was conducted by telephone of 900 registered voters.

12/17/2010 2:38:12 PM

Ok you want to quote numbers?

Here is a question that is in no way misleading:
Since January 2009, the respondent’s federal income taxes have actually gone up
Percent misinformed among people who use Fox news as daily source: 49%
average among other networks: 32.2

Also look at the charts themselves and you notice in most cases a correspondence with increased misinformation and increased viewing of Fox News (Never vs almost daily row).

Some of the questions would be polarizing because of political affiliation which is why it was so interesting that Democratic voters who viewed Fox news followed the same trends of misinformation.

Quote :

"and many of those hot topic issues, as stated before, do not have clear or conclusive answers yet - so i'm not sure how one can be misinformed on something that has not yet been decided. "

Really? These questions aren't asking for clear and conclusive answers they are asking what is the general consensus among the leaders in the field (economists, scientists etc.) Therefore there is a right and wrong answer to the questions. Do most scientists support climate change? YES might they be wrong? Who knows but that wasn't BEING FUCKING ASKED and wasn't the subject of the poll.

12/17/2010 2:51:12 PM

Quote :

"[The Fox News] Polling was conducted by telephone of 900 registered voters"

and this "study" was done by 850 voters over the internet.

woop.

12/17/2010 4:14:59 PM

I wanted you to quote numbers yes - not "number" Also who are you to say that someones taxes have gone up or down - maybe they should have phrased the question "tax rate"

ALSO
So you didn't read your study?

"most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring"
is what was quoted in the opinion piece

Most scientists think climate change is not occurring + views are divided evenly
is the statement phrased in the study

"Do most scientists support climate change?"
is the question you just asked.

none of those look like the same question to me + the actual wording is not a question at all, but a 2 part statement instead.
seems pretty ambiguous to me - you obviously misunderstood it (or didn't bother to read at all)

Maybe you should stop defending a "study" that you haven't read and just accept that you are part of the problem as well.

12/17/2010 4:44:21 PM

Or maybe you should stop picking out minute things and take a look at the overall picture. You can pick and pick but at the end of it all the study shows some alarming trends.

12/17/2010 4:54:10 PM

When you stop expecting cable news channels to give you totally unbiased and comprehensive coverage of every issue, you'll stop freaking out every time it is revealed that cable news channels do not give you totally unbiased and comprehensive coverage of every issue.

12/17/2010 5:06:08 PM

I for one would just like them to discuss relevant and serious (and international) issues rather than just trying to divert public attention to petty and irrelevant bullshit and baseless speculation.

But that's just my personal complaints about the news media and isn't really relevant to the whole Fox News thing in this thread.

12/17/2010 5:20:01 PM

lol at the amount of pwnage in this thread.

12/17/2010 6:12:42 PM

Quote :

"When you stop expecting cable news channels to give you totally unbiased and comprehensive coverage of every issue, you'll stop freaking out every time it is revealed that cable news channels do not give you totally unbiased and comprehensive coverage of every issue."

Who is freaking out about that. A alarming problem in this country is how uninformed the average voter is. A News network that is contributing to this at a seemingly higher rate is disturbing.

Quote :

" Most scientists think climate change is not occurring + views are divided evenly"

I can't believe how stupid you are. You do realize you just countered your OWN POINT. If you responded yes to the question you would be saying that yes they agree or are divided evenly. This gives the fox viewers EVEN MORE WIGGLE room than my version of the question. However because fox viewers are MISINFORMED they answered NO which is incorrect. This is a fact and it is not debatable.

[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 6:29 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/17/2010 6:21:45 PM

who is this person ^ what alias are they? seems annoyingly familiar...

12/17/2010 7:02:38 PM

No actual response? I am surprised

12/17/2010 7:04:47 PM

Can't be me, I don't use rolly-eyes

12/17/2010 11:54:29 PM

Quote :

"Fox news leads to misinformation"

12/18/2010 12:34:57 PM

If anyone, the study organizers are misinformed. Does anyone really believe the healthcare reform act will turn out to actually save money? Who is actually certain that the stimulus created between 2 and 5 million jobs?

12/19/2010 1:17:05 AM

Created or saved? I have no idea about the actual number, but just look at what happened with the car companies, for example. Agree with what we chose to do in terms of bailing them out or not, it's clear that if we hadn't, then all the people who work for those companies would essentially be jobless now.

I mean, maybe they got jobs somewhere else, and I'm sure that they have reduced jobs to thin things out, but they have over 200,000 employees, so you have to imagine that were they allowed to fail, at least half of those would be jobless, not to mention any subsidiaries who make their money off of selling products to GM or on behalf of GM.

That's just one example, and I could be entirely wrong about the math behind it, but I would imagine that this saved jobs. You would assume that there were similar job savings/creations because AIG and other companies weren't allowed to fail and create a domino effect as well.

12/19/2010 1:52:05 AM

While I wouldn't presume the argument in the thread title, that "Fox News leads to misinformation," is probably wrong I don't think this study or any of the other similar ones are sufficiently thorough to demonstrate that. I also wouldn't expect any case study to be able to prove a causal link either since we don't yet possess sufficient understanding of the human mind to observe when an idea that is either provably false or most generally accepted as false is taken up by the brain and first accepted as true.

The best that this study, or those like it, have shown is that people consume information from sources that either repeat their own misconceptions, passively reinforce them, or at least do not challenge them. The thing is though, while scale of misinformation is arguable as well as difficult to encapsulate, the studies that compare audiences of different media do at least show this to be consistent across all audiences. That is to say that for a population that regular consumes information from a subset of these sources - the rate at which a not-uncommon (held by a statistically significant minority) misconception about a topic covered by that source is believed to be true should not be expected to track to the average rate for the total population.

Basically- the likelihood that someone will hold a specific misconception about a particular topic is different for a sample of people who regularly consume information about that topic from the same source compared to:

1) The general/control population - by the very definition of the sample subset they will be more informed (regardless of whether this is rightly or wrongly) since the subset definition precludes the non-consumer
2) A sample subset who regularly consume information on the same topic from a different source

The first part is obvious enough and does not really pose a problem with the article or this kind of study. The second item is that from which people attempt to imply a causal link. I do not disagree that it is logical to believe there to be a causal link but I do believe there is a more reasonable explanation.

The idea of cognitive dissonance is fairly well established. While we are only just now beginning to scratch the surface as far as understanding the mechanism behind it, it is a fairly universally relate-able phenomenon. It is, for a lack of a better description, uncomfortable when an idea presented conflicts with an idea you hold to be true. For any particular consumer of information, the least discomfort would be caused by a source of information that presented the fewest challenges to ideas held by a particular consumer. Since it is almost impossible for one not to have at least preconceptions about most topics discussed on any news source before becoming a regular consumer - they will already have a predilection to find a particular source of information more or less dissonant than another as well. Without some evidence to the contrary, I propose that the most common misconceptions in these groups were formed before selecting a primary source for related information.

Since the study is insufficient to cover the breadth of statistically significant misconceptions people may have I do not think it can serve to quantify with any authority whether one of these groups is meaningfully more or less misinformed than another. Instead I think these studies are only sufficient to suggest, and weakly at that, that a regular consumer of information is more likely to choose a source that is less likely to challenge the misconceptions they hold. While this notion is interesting it is not particularly illuminating except as a potential argument for diversity in one's source of information. It could also be used to suggest a further study considering a sample subset which consisted of those who consciously or unconsciously receive information from multiple supposedly dissonant sources. Still, I think some might find the idea that the "best informed" are those who are not only regularly informed but also informed from a diverse set of sources to be a less than novel one.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 6:15 AM. Reason : this is a rambling mess -sorry]

12/19/2010 6:11:25 AM

Sorry for the double post, but I rambled so long in an attempted edit that I ran over the time limit. Anyways, here's my preachy anecdotal addition to what I said earlier.

Not that my anecdote relates to the validity of the article or study, but I regularly watch Fox News as well as MSNBC, NPR and Al-Jazeera English (as well as similarly tinged online text sources). I am fairly liberal and I used to find myself getting into passionate debates with conservative friends over specifics that I would sometimes find I was provably wrong about after researching them later. I'm sure this is not an unfamiliar experience for most people on this board. Admittedly, there is some sense of smug satisfaction when a quick google search would turn up reliable information proving my friend wrong this is ultimately an empty discovery compared to the silent embarrassment from wasted effort defending what you later discover to be fiction. What was worse was discovering such misconceptions after having someone else concede or give in to argument- there is a tinge of guilt in realizing you managed to perpetuate a fiction by convincing someone the truth they knew was wrong regardless of how well you might have thought you had done it.

As uncomfortable as it may be for me to hear the ideas presented by Fox News or Al-Jazeera English that conflict with what I beleive to be true - particularly when they are correct and I was not - it is still preferable to the alternative. I would rather admit that Bill O'Reily was right to attack a Democrat's use of parliamentary procedures as politicization of an otherwise popular bill or that Al Jazeera was right to call the failure of the Senate to pass some version of the Zadroga bill months ago an unforgivable of the entire body (democrats for being inflexible on the source of funding and republicans for blocking it) to honor those most heroic on 9/11- I would rather concede those points silently to the television than to realize I spent half an hour bickering with a friend over a point I was completely misinformed on.

[Edited on December 19, 2010 at 6:44 AM. Reason : excuse the poor grammar- jetlagging like crazy]

12/19/2010 6:43:34 AM

Quote :

"Created or saved? I have no idea about the actual number, but just look at what happened with the car companies, for example. Agree with what we chose to do in terms of bailing them out or not, it's clear that if we hadn't, then all the people who work for those companies would essentially be jobless now."

And if we hadn't bailed them out, all the workers at Ford and Toyota's car plant in California and elsewhere might not have lost their jobs. The jobs do not exist because their employers exist, the jobs exist because customers are buying cars, and a GM bankruptcy, even liquidation, would not have stopped Americans or the world from buying automobiles.

And had AIG and the other financial companies gone bankrupt, their employees would have lost their jobs. But, the demand for financial services would not have gone away, so other financial firms would grow to fill the void. But, because these mis-managed firms were bailed out, their better managed competitors instead had to lay off much of their workforce.

12/19/2010 10:42:22 AM

Quote :

"But, the demand for financial services would not have gone away"

Yes it would have.

12/19/2010 11:50:56 AM

To those who think that climate scientists are in less agreement on anthropogenic climate change than scientists in general, in April 2010 the National Academy of Scientists found that "97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC." (from the Proceedings of the NAS)

Also it's appalling that the lowest level of misinformation about the effect of the stimulus on employment was still 65% (MSNBC viewers); more generally only 8% of those surveyed believed correctly that most economists estimate that it saved or created millions of jobs: http://www.bilerico.com/2010/12/the_miseducation_of_america.php

12/19/2010 1:01:29 PM