American MSM Refuses to Reveal the Inconvenient Truth

… The Australian and British press have eaten the American media’s lunch on the collapse of credibility at the IPCC and in the anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) movement. In the past four months, media outlets like the Times of London, the Telegraph, the Australian Herald-Sun, and even the Left-leaning paper The Guardian have broken important stories (along with bloggers) exposing the fraud, mismanagement, and unscientific behavior of the core group of AGW advocates, such as:

None of these — none — were exposed by a major American media outlet. The efforts of the American press, with a couple of rare exceptions such as the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal, have mainly been to play down the significance of every revelation and to emphasize their view of scientific AGW “consensus.” …

Source: Another American media failure

Go read the whole thing.

UPDATE: An excellent follow-up post by Ed Morrissey:

Earlier this week, I criticized the American media for ignoring the rapidly-increasing number of scandals surrounding the IPCC, the University of East Anglia CRU, and the anthropogenic global-warming movement in general. Today, an American newspaper breaks news of yet another scandal involving AGW scientists and e-mail — but this time here in the US. The Washington Times obtained e-mails sent through the National Academy of Sciences that show AGW scientists conspiring to attack critics

“Appeal to their own authority” is a fairly elegant way of pointing out the hubris in AGW advocates who declared the science “settled” and began to brand everyone who questioned it as “deniers.” Stephen Dinan reports that Stanford researcher Stephen Schneider accused Senator James Inhofe of “McCarthyesque” attacks for urging a criminal investigation into potential fraud in the AGW movement. Schneider must have missed the calls from AGW advocates to have any weatherman who expressed doubt about global warming to be decertified as meteorologists, or questioning the patriotism of Americans who dare to question the sputtering consensus. Nothing McCarthyesque about that, is there?

UPDATE:
Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to American MSM Refuses to Reveal the Inconvenient Truth

  1. In America, “MSM” appears to stand for “Marxist, Socialist Media”.

  2. skeeter says:

    Two days ago one of the major National TV News Networks (in the USA) declared that the record breaking snowfalls in the East and North East USA and the record breaking cold temperatures in the South and Southwestern USA was not occurring on a global scale. Seems they think the snow and cold this winter is unique to America.. and global warming is still occurring elsewhere. Some of the inhabitants of the British Isles seem to think otherwise.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254675/Weather.html

    Then again, maybe the ‘folks’ on the other side of the Atlantic just haven’t got the word yet [about global warming].

  3. skeeter says:

    MSM *** Methyl–Sulfonyl–Methane*** for snoring. They are asleep, snoring. That is the noise we have been hearing from ABC, Dian S.–CBS, Katie C.–NBC, Matt L. and Brian W.–MSNBC Chris Matthews, Kieth Olberman, Rachel Maddow–Charley Rose PBS, Bill Moyer PBS, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales Democracy Now, and Gibbs @ the Wh-H-. Snoring. All are sound asleep. Nero fiddled, while Rome burned.

  4. Aaron says:

    This winter stuff will be here until Al Gore and the other enviro-morons cry, “Uncle!”

    It’s funny that Obama said, “The debate is over…” Perhaps they need to be reminded of the last President who in 2002, said, “The debate is over…” You know, the one that gives every sinister-winger in the world a severe case of BDS.

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Ouch.

    Seems the “skeptics” have been caught making up data. Anthony Watts has been called out on it.

    Surely your readers will join in calling for Watts to apologize and resign his high-level positions:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/global-update/

  6. Aaron says:

    Wow,

    You have a MOUNTAIN of evidence showing the wrongs committed by “scientists” who stand behind AGW theories and here comes a sinister-winger who can barely manage to fine ONE wrong committed by a skeptic.

    Nice try, but it takes more than an ounce of evidence of one skeptic’s wrong-doing to equal the tons of evidence of supporters’ wrong-doings. You still have a lot of digging to do.

    Go back to begging for government hand-outs, it’s what the left is best at.

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    You have a MOUNTAIN of evidence showing the wrongs committed by “scientists” who stand behind AGW theories and here comes a sinister-winger who can barely manage to fine ONE wrong committed by a skeptic

    No, we have stolen e-mails, which show that scientists were piqued about the political campaign against their science. That’s not wrong. It’s not illegal. It’s a standard human emotion, and in this case, a virtue. We should be worried about false claims from politicians about science.

    Why are you not concerned?

    There are no other “wrongs” found in the e-mails. At the moment there are investigations going on. In those actions concluded, universities determined that the scientists involved did nothing wrong, and generally behaved as scientists should, if with sharp language.

    Police agencies are looking for those who stole the e-mails.

    Mountain of wrongs? On the contrarian side, it appears. You’ll spin almost anything, if you can.

    Notice, other readers, that there is not any substantive response to the finding that the contrarians have fabricated wholesale the charges against scientists, as demonstrated by the link above.

  8. Aaron says:

    “You’ll spin almost anything, if you can.”

    Just like you attempted to spin one shred of evidence for your point to equal a mountain of evidence against it?

    More proof that projection and hypocrisy are hallmarks of sinister-wing politics.

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    Aaron, the entire case against human-caused global warming is “we stole their e-mails!”

    The glaciers don’t care, and continue to melt. The birds don’t listen, and continue to die off, those that can’t change their migration and nesting patterns. The corals can’t hear you, and keep bleaching and dying. The sea thinks you should read about Canute, and keeps rising.

    It’s a science discussion, or should be. Has anyone published anything from the stolen e-mails yet, in any science journal?

    Then, of course, you don’t have a case.

  10. Ed,
    What utter bovine excrement!

    Follow the links above and you will see numerous examples where the “scientists” had made claims that were not based on science, and they have HAD TO RETRACT THEIR FORMER CLAIMS.

    That includes claims about glaciers melting. That includes claims about any statisticly significant warming AT ALL over the last 15 years.

    The emails are only one part of the story, but an important part. They reveal a host of unscientific behavior. Regardless of whether they were leaked, stolen, or anything else, they are genuine. You can’t (and choose not to) address the serious misbehavior revealed in those emails. And I don’t condone illegal behavior.

    “It’s a science discussion, or should be.” I agree. And you don’t have a scientific case for human-caused global warming.

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    Follow the links above and you will see numerous examples where the “scientists” had made claims that were not based on science, and they have HAD TO RETRACT THEIR FORMER CLAIMS.

    List the retractions, will you? And for my sake, number them. Let’s get an accurate count.

    That includes claims about glaciers melting.

    No retraction there. Turns out the melting isn’t so fast as a typo indicated — we have 300 years longer. Good news, really — doesn’t help much downstream, though, where water shortages exacerbated by warming still threaten a billion or more people.

    But let’s be clear: The glaciers are melting faster than they should due to global warming. There was no retraction of that.

    That includes claims about any statisticly significant warming AT ALL over the last 15 years.

    You’re hallucinating. Turns out warming is just as significant as ever — there is no information contrary.

    In fact, Anthony Watts got his hand caught in the wringer claiming what you claim. Turns out that independent analysis of the data show that warming is every bit as bad as IPCC notes. In fact, it’s worse — IPCC was conservative.

    But I’m game: Where are the papers that say warming has not occurred?

    The emails are only one part of the story, but an important part. They reveal a host of unscientific behavior.

    Alas for you, the only unscientific behavior revealed was on the part of the warming denialists and contrarians — genuine misdeeds, suitable for prosecution if done with U.S. government money, but done by the contrarians.

    There is no allegation of any wrongdoing by scientists with any backup. Because universities regard their reputations so dearly, there have been investigations just to be sure there was no hanky-panky by scientists, as alleged at unsavory and inaccurate blogs. The scientists were exonerated of such charges.

    No one from the contrarians could withstand such scrutiny, as you know.

    Don’t let the facts get in the way of your attempted smear though, will you?

    Regardless of whether they were leaked, stolen, or anything else, they are genuine. You can’t (and choose not to) address the serious misbehavior revealed in those emails. And I don’t condone illegal behavior.

    What “serious misbehavior?” I’ve dealt with that all at my blog. The serious misbehavior was on the part of contrarians, and the scientists decided to respond by publishing more research — that’s what the e-mails show (somehow I get the feeling you’ve not read them yourself).

    I think that those who published fraudulent research should be prosecuted if they took federal money to do it. The paper in question was written by these guys, David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearsona and S. Fred Singer — four of the biggest contrarians there are. We’re still waiting for you to call for their investigation, dismissal, and/or prosecution.

    Seems you like people who violate laws, so long as you can use the products to smear scientists — you don’t condemn stealing the e-mails, you don’t condemn the fraud revealed, but call for sanctions against the victims instead.

    Astounding.

    “It’s a science discussion, or should be.” I agree. And you don’t have a scientific case for human-caused global warming.

    Let me ask again: Where is the case against human caused global warming? I see no data. I see no journal articles. I see no research. Why are you hiding the stuff, if you have it?

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    Any chance you’ll approve my immediately previous post here?

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    Sorry about that — probably a cookie problem at my end. Thanks for releasing the post.

  14. The carbon emissions data is also instructive. In both graphs, its linkage to population growth is so close that the actual percentage has to be moved off of the right border of the graph. It also parallels energy consumption, which has grown at a slightly lower rate than population, especially over the last couple of years of the report (which may have more to do with the recession). Either way, carbon emissions are not out of control — and attempts to lower them will require an effort much different than the attempt to eliminate pollutant emissions.

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    The carbon emissions data is also instructive. In both graphs, its linkage to population growth is so close that the actual percentage has to be moved off of the right border of the graph.

    The linkage is exactly as powerful to vehicle miles traveled, except for the last two years, and energy consumption. Maybe the cause-effect relationship is there.

    Or, perhaps, the link is to the decline in aggregate emissions. As aggregate emissions go down, GDP, energy use and population all go up.

    On the basis of that chart and the logic Hot Air implies, we should choke off all emissions to encourage dramatic growth of GDP.

    Or, maybe the graph just shows trends, and the links are not so tight as Hot Air pretends.

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    P.S. Found any research to make a case against the IPCC report yet?

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    Boy Howdy, Inhofe does indeed sound a lot like McCarthy! “Fraud?”

    Inhofe will get a visit from the Rules Committee lawyers, I predict. His speeches in press releases and off the floor are not protected debate, and he’s personally liable for libels he issues, like that charge of fraud.

    So, I gather you’ve not found any research to suggest any problem with any part of IPCC, eh? That’s why Inhofe shouldn’t make libelous claims. He doesn’t have a research, or criminal law, leg to stand on.

  18. So, I gather you’ve not found any research to suggest any problem with any part of IPCC, eh?

    To the contrary, you have chosen to ignore or discount what I have already presented above.

    I don’t feel it’s worth my time to argue with you.

  19. Ed Darrell says:

    What I asked for was a citation to any research which calls into question any part of the IPCC study. You offered no research, not even a cite to a letter to a research journal.

    No, it’s not worth time for either of us if you can’t back any of your claims.

  20. Ed,
    I am a person who is interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Hence, I am thankful that the early parts of the video you linked help to show the whole truth of what was said, versus the partial truths that made headlines. Now, for the later part of the video, I disagree with the assertion that we’re in a “witch hunt” phase against scientists. To the contrary, we want scientific research. What we don’t want is for one group of “scientists”, who aren’t even adhering to the scientific method, trying to silence another group of scientists who are. The amount of fascism seen in the current politically-motivated “scientific” community is unacceptable. A “peer reviewed” journal should not exclude those who disagree with the editors. Scientists should not be denied tenure or grants simply becuase they dare to question the ficticious “Consensus”.

    I am not anti-science. I am pro-science. I have graduated suma cum laude, with two scientific degrees, from an “elite” university. I’m not an ignorant grunt yelling, “Burn Her!”, as implied by the end of that video. (Although I am a Monty Python fan :-) )

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    Not in a witch hunt? What is it Sen. Inhofe is trying to conduct? How about the e-mails to Penn State to get an investigation of Dr. Mann? As the investigators noted, there were no allegations from scientists of any problem.

    Not a witch hunt? Look at the rest of your comment.

    To the contrary, we want scientific research. What we don’t want is for one group of “scientists”, who aren’t even adhering to the scientific method,

    [witch hunt]

    trying to silence another group of scientists who are.

    Okay, let’s here your condemnation of Christopher Monckton, who has called for trials for the scientists at Hadley and NASA. I dare you to go try to stop the witch hunt at Watt’s Up With That, where the scientists at NASA have been accused of fraud and worse.

    They’re getting death threats. No witch hunt?

    The amount of fascism seen in the current politically-motivated “scientific” community is unacceptable. A “peer reviewed” journal should not exclude those who disagree with the editors.

    Nor has that happened anywhere in any of the reputable science journals. The e-mails were most fascinating: Finding evidence of fraud on the part of the warming denialists, rather than call for criminal investigations, hearings before university ethics boards, or a public shaming campaign, the scientists you condemn determined to work harder to publish new evidence showing the error of the stuff published by the denialists.

    It’s astounding to me that you’ve got this whole scenario exactly backwards. First you claim there’s no witch hunt, and then you accuse scientists of witchery. Did you even proofread your piece?

    Scientists should not be denied tenure or grants simply becuase they dare to question the ficticious “Consensus”.

    Nor has anyone from the denialist side been denied tenure especially, nor grants — but your side called for the head of the director of Hadley, and he has temporarily stepped down.

    No witch hunt? What are you doing with the pressing board, stones, stake, wood and torches?

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    Oops. Shoulda been “hear your condemnation.”

  23. UPDATE:
    Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

    …the Himalayan claim wasn’t based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data — but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

    Was science even a real concern for the IPCC?

  24. Surprise! No warming in last 11 years
    posted at 6:45 pm on October 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s