Am sending this out, but I don't expect right wingers to believe it

"Media manipulation in the U.S. today is more efficient than it was in Nazi Germany, because here we have the pretense that we are getting all the information we want. That misconception prevents people from even looking for the truth." - Mark Crispin Miller

"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer

Those who are being taught by Fox Noise will never believe truth. Facts are rejected by Fox news "hosts" while they pump right-wing ideological B.S. into the minds of their viewers.  For those who have never watched Fox, I recommend tuning to that channel just to see how their loyal viewers are molded into robots, every second of every day. Be forewarned: It's like being catapulted into Upside-down Bizarro World where everything you know to be true is refuted with mind-manipulating falsehoods--often delivered by women chosen for their facial beauty, short skirts, long legs and high heels...and ignorance. They are Fox's eye candy for the men viewers who don't want truth--just give them lies put forth by long eye-lashed, heavily lipsticked female sex objects.  To keep viewers entertained and stimulated,  drumbeats and music designed to excite are continually heard behind the oft-appearing gigantic words "BREAKING NEWS!" and "ALERT!" Fear is the order of the day in practically everything they report (invent).  Known facts don't matter at all, because, of course, they are interested only in lining up the lemmings, brainwashing them to jump off whichever cliff they are promoting as "FEAR Cliff of the Day." 

Most Fox viewers will unquestioningly follow the leaders the network gives them (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, etc.) Well...just recently one exception has been brought to her knees by the man who has previously said he wanted to see a woman on her knees (hmm...who could That be?) Megyn Kelly, their once highly touted woman "anchor/reporter," has fallen into disfavor and been toppled from her perch by Donald Trump, who will brook no disagreement or hard questions from ANYone, including Fox.  Roger Ailes had to call the Donald to apologize to him for Megyn's harshness towards him with her debate question re. Trump's abusive comments about women.  We can't have King Donald unhappy, now, can we?  Especially when he is creating higher ratings for Fox (and all the other networks, too, for that matter). Fox viewers love Donald and want to see him become our President. (sigh.....) 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call journalistic "news" in today's world.  Can we possibly sink any Lower than this?  Stay tuned --I think the Donald and Fox will prove there is no bottom limit to their fake noise that has wholly mesmerized the far right wing. 

Following is one example of a scientifically proven truth (proven over and over and over) that will never be accepted by Fox, their corporate masters, or their dumbed-down viewers  (unless King Donald rocks the Fox boat again by telling them he believes the scientists).  

The 97 Percent Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Is Wrong—It's Even Higher

By Taylor Hill, editor at TakePart

The debate on global warming is over. Way over.

Jul 9, 2015

In May, Last Week Tonight host John Oliver attempted to visually demonstrate what a true debate on climate change should look like. Instead of bringing out one expert on either side of the issue, Oliver brought on set 97 scientists who support evidence that humans are causing global warming to argue with three climate skeptics—"a statistically representative climate change debate," he said.

The sketch was based on the "climate consensus," the notion that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that humans are part of the problem.

But if Oliver really wanted to be up-to-date on his stats, he would have put 99.99 scientists on one side of the desk.

That's according to James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, who reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014.

Powell identified 69,406 authors named in the articles, four of whom rejected climate change as being caused by human emissions.

That's one in every 17,352 scientists. Oliver would need a much bigger studio to statistically represent that dispa

"The 97 percent is wrong, period," Powell said. "Look at it this way: If someone says that 97 percent of publishing climate scientists accept anthropogenic [human-caused] global warming, your natural inference is that 3 percent reject it. But I found only 0.006 percent who reject it. That is a difference of 500 tim

To obtain his figures, Powell—a member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush—reviewed the abstracts of 24,210 papers, searching for key words such as "global warming," "global climate change," and "climate change." He spent nine months reading titles and abstracts, finding only five articles (two from the same author) that clearly reject human-caused global warming or give another explanation for the rising temperatures. The paper isn't in the public domain yet, but Powell has sent it in to a peer-reviewed journal for publication this summer.

So, Why Should You Care?
Powell said correcting the commonly held climate consensus number of 97 percent to 99.99 percent is just one more step in the process of ending the climate debate.

"Publishing scientists are virtually unanimous: Anthropogenic global warming is true," Powell said. The quicker we understand that, he said, the quicker we can agree on the importance of cutting carbon emissions, which influence global temperatures, sea-level rise, long-term health, and the world's food supply.

But try telling that to large portions of Americans—a third of whom believe that global warming will either never happen (16 percent) or will not happen in their lifetime (17 percent), according to a March 2015 Gallup poll.

Read the Pew Research Center's January survey, and the divide between the scientific community and the general public on climate change appears even wider. The survey asked members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the general public if they believed the Earth was getting warmer owing to human activity.

While 87 percent of the AAAS community agreed that the Earth was getting warmer thanks to humans, only 50 percent of regular Joes agreed, and nearly half responded either that the Earth was getting warmer on its own or that there was no evidence of climate change at all.

Powell said he wasn't surprised to find the large disparity between those who reject and accept climate change in the scientific publishing world. He knew that in 2004 Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University, had reviewed 928 abstracts of articles on global warming, finding none that rejected it.

"Scientists have done so much more work since then," Oreskes told MSNBC. "For me, as a historian of science, it really feels like overkill. One starts to think, how many more times do we need to say this before we really get it and start to act on it?"

Oreskes coauthored the book Merchants of Doubt, which looks at how industry interest groups have placed "science experts" in different fields to deceive the public on issues such as tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and climate change. Her 2004 research was the first to find a consensus on climate change. Powell's work is just the latest to strengthen that argument. (Disclosure: The documentary Merchants of Doubt, which is based on Oreskes' book, was produced by Participant Media, TakePart's parent company.)

"Many people evidently feel that they can accept the findings of science that they agree with and reject those that they find offensive or inconvenient," Powell said. "But it doesn't work that way. Science is of a piece, all fitting together like a beautiful tapestry. To say that climate scientists are wrong is to say that all these fields are wrong and therefore science itself is wrong. But if it were, nothing would work. People can't have it both way