"But the debate is over! How am I supposed to pay my $16,000 annual electric bill or keep flying in Gulfstreams if you yahoos don’t believe in global warming? What about the polar bears! I’m a professor!
“Someone throw me a frikkin’ bone here!”
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
How much longer can the MSM ignore this? [/quote]
How long have they ignored the content of Obama’s first book, and how long did they ignore the Rev Jeremiah Wright, or ignore their pretty-boy John Edwards’ extra-marital affair (while his wife was fighting cancer, yet) that reportedly the journalists covering the campaign all knew about?
Lemmings: are they on the endangered species list yet?
A quick online news survey shows the following references to this story as of noon today:
FoxNews: Front page link/story
WSJ: secondary page video with reference to Phil Jones’ new revelations
WashPost: Front page link/story
NYTimes: Several fluff ‘debate’ pieces in the Science section, but no reference to this major story.
WashTimes: Opinion piece on abandoning AGW, but no reference to current story. No mention in “Environment” section.
LATimes: Non-specific piece on errors in climate reporting. Nothing about this story, not even in ‘science section’.
ABCNews: Nothing
CBSNews: Nothing
MSNBC: Nothing
CNNOnline: Nothing
For such an impending catastrophe and urgent action needed as reported for years by the MSM, there seems to be little if any effort to report that the whole AGW movement has been cut off at the head…
Feh.
PBSNews: Nothing (not even in ‘science’)
Anyone else care to add to the list?
Well, in fairness, I can’t consider the Washington Post not to be a top-level figure among the most major of mainstream media sources.
So the liberal TV networks did as expected, as has the NYT so far, but the cone of silence did not wind up extending to 100%.
As the WP has posted it which makes it hard for others to continue utterly ignoring it,as a guess the manifestation of media bias will likely prove a matter of giving this limited play, with rather weak-hitting writing, and rapidly moving to other things and back to pro-AGW stuff.
NPR this morning had a special piece repeating and expanding upon the talking point about warmer air > more moisture > more snow. So predictable.
I can’t read the WP article as for some reason the registration I had before isn’t working: is it nearly so hard-hitting as the British article, or instead is it rather watered-down?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, in fairness, I can’t consider the Washington Post not to be a top-level figure among the most major of mainstream media sources.
So the liberal TV networks did as expected, as has the NYT so far, but the cone of silence did not wind up extending to 100%.
As the WP has posted it which makes it hard for others to continue utterly ignoring it,as a guess the manifestation of media bias will likely prove a matter of giving this limited play, with rather weak-hitting writing, and rapidly moving to other things and back to pro-AGW stuff.[/quote]
Bill, no direct mention to this Phil Jones story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021404283_2.html?hpid=topnews
Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda
With its 2007 report declaring that the “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize – and a new degree of public trust in the controversial science of global warming.
But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes – including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level – give doubters an opening.
It wasn’t the first one. There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. But in the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors, has sullied their image as impartial academics. The errors in the U.N. report – a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt – are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it.
Two Republican senators who have long opposed a cap on carbon emissions, James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), are citing the errors as further reasons to block mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Last week, Barrasso called for an independent probe into the IPCC, suggesting that the United States should halt any action on climate until it verifies the panel’s scientific conclusions.
Inhofe said Thursday in the Senate that the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to curb greenhouse gases should be reexamined, since the U.N. panel’s conclusions influenced the agency’s finding that climate change poses a public threat. “The ramifications of the IPCC spread far and wide, most notably to the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that greenhouse gases from mobile sources endanger public health and welfare,” Inhofe said. On Friday, a coalition of conservative groups filed a petition to overturn the EPA’s finding on the same grounds.
ad_icon
“There is a sense that something’s rotten in the state of the IPCC,” said Richard H. Moss, a senior scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland, who has worked with the panel since 1993. “It’s just wildly exaggerated. But we need to take a look and see if something needs to be improved.”
The IPCC climate assessments are, by any standard, a massive undertaking. Thousands of scientists across the globe volunteer to evaluate tens of thousands of academic documents and translate them into plain-English reports that policymakers can understand.
Climate researchers say the errors do not disprove the U.N. panel’s central conclusion: Climate change is happening, and humans are causing it. Some researchers said the U.N. panel’s attitude – appearing to promise that its results were infallible, and reacting slowly to evidence that they were not – could undermine the rest of its work.
“What’s happened here is that there’s an industry of climate-change denialists who are trying to make it seem as though you can’t trust anything that is between the covers” of the panel’s report, said Jeffrey Kargel, a professor at the University of Arizona who studies glaciers. “It’s really heartbreaking to see this happen, and to see that the IPCC left themselves open” to being attacked.
Kargel said he noticed an error in the report of the IPCC’s second working group, a research unit, in 2007. The report said huge glaciers in the Himalayan mountains might disappear by 2035. Some glaciers are melting, but they are too enormous to disappear that quickly: “It’s physically impossible to kill the ice that fast,” Kargel said.
He said colleagues regarded the error as too ridiculous to fuss about until recently. Last month, the journal Science printed a letter to the editor that traced the origins of the mistaken data: The U.N. panel seemed to have quoted an activist group’s report, not a peer-reviewed study. And, in citing another source, it appeared to have committed a serious typo: The year 2350 had become 2035.
Another line that has sparked scrutiny reads, “Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation,” and links to a report co-written by the World Wildlife Fund. The analysis cited key work by Woods Hole Research Center senior scientist Daniel C. Nepstad, but the link to an advocacy group instead of a peer-reviewed paper infuriated conservatives.
“The underlying science is certainly there, but the citation process the IPCC went through is sloppy. There’s no other word for it,” said Doug Boucher, director of the Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The IPCC did not respond to requests for comment.
Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist and environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, said that the U.N. panel could hurt its own public standing by not admitting how it exaggerated certain climate risks or connections, such as linking higher insurance payouts to rising temperatures when other factors are driving this trend.
“The idea that the IPCC can or should strive to be infallible is really not helpful,” Pielke said. “When errors and mistakes are inevitably found, the fall is that much further. . . . There’s a real risk that the public perception could swing [toward greater disbelief in climate science]. Even though the reality is that the science – the underlying science – hasn’t changed.”
The error about the Netherlands was in a background note in the 2007 report that said 55 percent of the country lay below sea level, but that figure included areas that were actually above sea level and prone to flooding.
U.N. Foundation President Timothy E. Wirth, whose nonprofit group has highlighted the work of the IPCC, said that the pirated e-mails gave “an opening” to attack climate science and that the scientific work “has to be defended just like evolution has to be defended.”
It is unclear whether the controversy will hamper passage of a bill to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which has stalled in the Senate. Paul W. Bledsoe, of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, said that if people want to know why the “bill is having a hard time in the Senate, I would rank [concern about climate science] lower than the economy and the financial meltdown.”
Scientists are debating whether they need to revamp the IPCC process or scrap it. The journal Nature published an opinion section Thursday in which several researchers floated ideas on how to change the U.N. panel, along with a piece written by Moss and others showing how scientists could increase collaboration across disciplines to produce more accurate climate projections more quickly.
ad_icon
And Christopher Field – co-chair of the second working group for the IPCC’s next assessment – said the panel needs to improve its fact-checking, even if it means enlisting report contributors’ students to help do the job.
“My goal is to produce a report that’s 100 percent error-free, to the maximum extent possible,” he said. “The fact that the IPCC runs on volunteer labor makes it a challenge, but it’s too important a challenge to ignore.”
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Bill, no direct mention to this Phil Jones story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021404283_2.html?hpid=topnews
… Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes – including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level – give doubters an opening.
It wasn’t the first one. There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.
… “There is a sense that something’s rotten in the state of the IPCC,” said Richard H. Moss, a senior scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland, who has worked with the panel since 1993. “It’s just wildly exaggerated. But we need to take a look and see if something needs to be improved.”
The IPCC climate assessments are, by any standard, a massive undertaking. Thousands of scientists across the globe volunteer to evaluate tens of thousands of academic documents and translate them into plain-English reports that policymakers can understand.
Climate researchers say the errors do not disprove the U.N. panel’s central conclusion: Climate change is happening, and humans are causing it.
… “What’s happened here is that there’s an industry of climate-change denialists who are trying to make it seem as though you can’t trust anything that is between the covers” of the panel’s report, said Jeffrey Kargel, a professor at the University of Arizona who studies glaciers. “It’s really heartbreaking to see this happen, and to see that the IPCC left themselves open” to being attacked.
… “The underlying science is certainly there, but the citation process the IPCC went through is sloppy. There’s no other word for it,” said Doug Boucher, director of the Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“The idea that the IPCC can or should strive to be infallible is really not helpful,” Pielke said.
… U.N. Foundation President Timothy E. Wirth, whose nonprofit group has highlighted the work of the IPCC, said that the pirated e-mails gave “an opening” to attack climate science and that the scientific work “has to be defended just like evolution has to be defended.”[/quote]
Ah, well I’d say it looks more like the WP played water-carrier again for AGW rather than reporting the hard facts on this story.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Ah, well I’d say it looks more like the WP played water-carrier again for AGW rather than reporting the hard facts on this story.
[/quote]
In other news, fish found to swim in water. More at 10.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
In other news, fish found to swim in water. [/quote]
Do you have a reference for that? Feddy gubamint funded studies only please.
The UN found something from the Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists saying that fish swim in trees. The study of course was funded by the American taxpayer, so no worries there.
Naturally, this has gone into the UN’s exhaustive, conclusive report which is of be-all, end-all significance to the world.
Therefore we must end logging and all use of wood and paper products so as to save the fish.
This will cost trillions, but we need to do it and do it now to save the ecosystem.
The trees in which the fish swim, incidentally, were – heartbreakingly – found by outside investigators to be underwater in the Netherlands.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The UN found something from the Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists saying that fish swim in trees. The study of course was funded by the American taxpayer, so no worries there.
Naturally, this has gone into the UN’s exhaustive, conclusive report which is of be-all, end-all significance to the world.
Therefore we must end logging and all use of wood and paper products so as to save the fish.
This will cost trillions, but we need to do it and do it now to save the ecosystem.[/quote]
No use arguing with them. There’s a consensus. The science has been settled. We’re approaching the tipping point dammit. If we don’t tackle this problem now in 100 years it will be too late!
Will someone throw Al Gore a frikkin’ bone already??? What about the polar bears?
Where are the board’s reflexive AGW-backers today?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Will someone throw Al Gore a frikkin’ bone already??? What about the polar bears?
[/quote]
He ate them.
It’s fun being right. And it’s more fun for the world to see that liberals are not just nut jobs, but liars. I used the " Does Ted Kennedy want this?" for years. If he did, i was against it. funny thing is after a little research, the facts seem to be on my side.
PRUDEN: The red-hot scam unravels
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/
You can fool some of the people some of the time, as Abraham Lincoln observed, and you even can fool all the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all the people all the time. Al Gore and his friends got so excited about points one and especially point two that they forgot point three.
…
One day this week, there was measurable snow on the ground in 50 states. (No report yet from the other seven of the “57 states” President Obama once said he was campaigning to be the president of.) Even Hawaii reported snow on some of its mountain peaks, and several towns in northwestern Florida were lightly dusted, like the powdered sugar on a cop’s doughnut.
…
The director of the research unit, professor Phil Jones, was regarded as an archbishop in the Church of Global Warming. He was pressured to resign in the wake of the scandal. Now he has conceded to an interviewer from the BBC that based on the evidence in his findings, the globe might have been warmer in medieval times. If so, the notion that fluctuations in earthly temperatures are man-made is rendered just that, a man-made notion.
The learned professor told his interviewer that for the past 15 years there has been no “statistically significant” warming.
…
The global-warming hysteria, on which the Obama administration wants to base enormous new tax burdens, is just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel. Man is driven by his ego and finds it impossible to think even the weather is not all about him.
B-b-b-b-ut, it’s settled science---- J-j-j-j-j-just DEAL WITH IT™!!!
My pro-AGW “friends” won’t read anything but the fucking NYT and the New Fucking Yorker Magazine. So they may never find out that the AGW scam is over. Years may pass. And years from now, they’ll be rather like the Japanese “hold outs” found in the South Pacific who were never informed that the war was over.