Global warming science implodes overseas: American

[scpg02]

Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent

Rick Moran
January 31, 2010

The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens - yes dozens - of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.

We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.

Glaciergate, tempgate, icegate, and now, disappearing Amazon forests not the result of warming, but of logging. And the report the IPCC based their bogus "science" on was written by a food safety advocate according to this Christopher Booker piece in the Telegraph :

This is a great story. It has everything a media outlet could desire; scandal, conflict of interest (IPCC head Pauchuri runs companies that benefited from climate scare stories), government cover ups - why then, has this unraveling of the basis of climate science that posited catastrophic man made warming not been making any news at all in the United States?

It's too easy to simply claim "bias." Media outlets don't pass up juicy stories that could potentially increase their readership and revenue for ideological purposes (except the New York Times - and even they could spin all of this to show skeptics to be using flawed arguments like the liberal Guardian is doing in England).

Perhaps its time to ask why this story being revealed overseas with new revelations almost daily in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Timesonline, and other Fleet Street publications can't get any traction here. Blogs like Watts up with That and Climate Depot are keeping us informed of the latest from England but we hear crickets chirping when it comes to stories from major newspapers and - outside of Fox News - the cable nets.

As global warming the political movement is losing its scientific justification, the American people - who will be asked to foot the bill to the tune of trillions of dollars if Obama goes ahead with his "green" plans - are grossly uninformed about the state of the debate. Until the media starts to give this story the coverage it deserves, that state of affairs will not change.

www.americanthinker.com

[slh1234]

You know, I really don't think so many people way for the news media to form their opinion as most people think. What I think is that most people watch the news as a cheerleader. They get upset when the news doesn't say what they want, and fret about "all those people" who are going to be "misled" by all that garbage that the news media is putting out, and they cheer when they hear something on the news that they agree with and wanted aired. But I don't think opinions are really formed by what they hear ... rather they just become topics of emotional discussion.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone was convinced of how "all those people" were going to be misled by the news ... but the person saying it never seems to stop to think how their opinions are not formed by the news, but rather they just watch as a cheerleader.

[Ratty]

Feb 2, 2010 6:37:44 GMT slh1234 said:

You know, I really don't think so many people way for the news media to form their opinion as most people think. What I think is that most people watch the news as a cheerleader. They get upset when the news doesn't say what they want, and fret about "all those people" who are going to be "misled" by all that garbage that the news media is putting out, and they cheer when they hear something on the news that they agree with and wanted aired. But I don't think opinions are really formed by what they hear ... rather they just become topics of emotional discussion.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone was convinced of how "all those people" were going to be misled by the news ... but the person saying it never seems to stop to think how their opinions are not formed by the news, but rather they just watch as a cheerleader.

My wife won't let me watch TV news & current affairs anymore because I do too much shouting <sigh> ....

[scpg02]

Feb 2, 2010 7:48:10 GMT Ratty said:

Feb 2, 2010 6:37:44 GMT slh1234 said:

You know, I really don't think so many people way for the news media to form their opinion as most people think. What I think is that most people watch the news as a cheerleader. They get upset when the news doesn't say what they want, and fret about "all those people" who are going to be "misled" by all that garbage that the news media is putting out, and they cheer when they hear something on the news that they agree with and wanted aired. But I don't think opinions are really formed by what they hear ... rather they just become topics of emotional discussion.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone was convinced of how "all those people" were going to be misled by the news ... but the person saying it never seems to stop to think how their opinions are not formed by the news, but rather they just watch as a cheerleader.

My wife won't let me watch TV news & current affairs anymore because I do too much shouting <sigh> ....

Yeah, that's why I quit watching the one minute speeches on CSPAN.

[itsthesunstupid]

In America at least, the left-leaning, mainstream media has been largely marginalized by its own biases. slh1234 is correct with the assessment that most people don't form their opinions based solely on what they see on the news. Some do, but the vast majority of Americans subscribe to publications, watch newscasts and frequent web sites and blogs that tend toward their world views.

Where the leftward leaning biases in the U.S. do have an affect is in the totality of the media and culture. People are constantly bombarded with a leftist world perspective by the consensus advocated by the news media, enetertainment, education and other cultural influencers. If one is inclined toward a conservative perspective and wants to learn both sides of an issue in the U.S. they must seek out information on the internet, a handful of publications and, yes, FOX News. All other readily accessible sources of information are dominated by the liberal elitists.

Regarding Climategate and the subsequently released info about the IPCC and other issues, there is a news embargo in the U.S. There isn't even a lot being reported by FOX News. One must seek out this info on sites like this, ClimateDepot.com, etc. Because the politicians are obsessed with ABC, NBC, CBS, The NYT and The Washington Post, they are still incubated by the tidal wave coming and are still trying to work out climate legislation to address a "problem" that has not yet been fully vetted by science.

High horse now dismounted.

[pacman]

Remember that the Watergate scandal as reported by the Washington Post was largely ignored by the American public. It took two years before Nixon resigned.

Thanks to the Internet, Climategate is gathering much greater momentum.

[hiddigeigei]

We have people on this site who have all the information we have and are still avid defenders of AGW. People believe what they want to believe and are not dissuaded by facts.

[scpg02]

Feb 2, 2010 16:18:01 GMT itsthesunstupid said:

High horse now dismounted.

I have a selection of smilies for that:





I know I had one standing on a soap box but I can't find it now. Sigh.

[brian0707]

The reason the story is getting more play in the European press than the US media is simple.

Global warming was embraced in Europe almost universally during the advent of the IPCC and the Kyoto Accord during the 1990s. In the USA much less so; even with Gore as VP, the US Congress during the Clinton years failed to endorse Kyoto and, subsequently, the climate change issue was all but ignored by the Bush administration. Although global warming got similar credulous coverage in the US media as Europe, it was never at the same volume and the issue did not embed itself in the US public conscience the way it did in Europe.

So the unravelling of the accepted dogma is a much bigger story in Europe than in America. Also, the nexus of the emails was England, not America so that makes it the hub of the contreversy.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Americans are way, way more concerned about their jobs and the economy than global warming. Always have been so. Its at the bottom of their lists of concerns. And the media, bless their hearts, play to the public interests.

So there's no conspiracy in the US media although there is clearly lingering bias. Its just not that big a deal.

Cheers.

[pacman]

There is slow but steady change in the MSM of New Zealand which has seemed to be the last bastion of global warming (apart from the US). This editorial in the Christchurch Press tis morning (5 February) is heartening.

www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/3295088/Editorial-Underhand-tactics