There is much introspection going on among environmental journalists. Last week, in a remarkably candid piece, Margot O’Neill of the ABC revealed for the first time what the flummoxed and frustrated would-be journalists are discussing behind the scenes.
The admissions are extraordinary. Despite the fact that hardly any of the journalists wrote about Climategate, for many the emails from East Anglia were not just important, but a defining moment (though not, apparently, because it dented their faith in the global warming dogma). Instead, it was the effect Climategate had on editors and others in the office: people who had previously thought climate science was scientific, and environmental journalists were journalists. Suddenly, others realized they had been cheated of the real news, sideswiped by a development none of the supposedly “investigative” reporters saw coming.
Now for the first time, we find out that the formerly respected writers got looks of betrayal.
Probably the most important reaction to the UEA hacking for journalists was in their own newsrooms, among their own editors who are the gatekeepers controlling if your work appears and how prominently. While some UK surveys show no dramatic loss of credibility for climate scientists with the public, here’s how some senior journalists described what it was like in their newsrooms after hacking:
“dirty looks”
“sense of betrayal”
thought we’d “gone native”
“you told me the science was settled – and it isn’t!”
Presumably, the other editors read about people using tricks to hide declines, but instead of seeing the would-be journalists pursue the obvious deceit and malpractice, they must have been shocked to hear whitewash excuses about how it was “taken out of context”. This is the point when alarm bells must have gone off for the real journalists in the room. It was not just the Climategate emails themselves, but the rush to downplay them. Methinks you doth protest too much.
How bad was climategate? Awful:
Climate-gate was extremely damaging in many ways. It gave the impression that journalists had been duped…
Wow. I mean, WOW! Let’s repeat that. It gave the impression that journalists had been duped. Yes, it did “look” like journos had been duped. That’s because they were. Fooled by one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Powers of all kinds tapped into the inner desires of writers aspiring to grandiose self-importance by offering them an excuse to play the heroic savior, to tell us how we should live, eat, play, and work, and to set the rules of “fashionable behavior”. The journalists took the opportunity, swallowed the pill, and volunteered in droves to be the marketing arm of large financial institutions, mediocre unprincipled scientists, and ambitious bureaucrats.
So what followed was a year where the environmental writers fell from glory, and even now they still don’t get it. They’re finding it harder to get stories published, the ratings have crashed.
O’Neill and the other fallen writers wonder what happened, but only find a litany of excuses. What they miss is that they’re still not behaving either scientifically or investigatively. They’re behaving like a PR team.
When the IPCC said they were 90% sure, an investigator would have asked: Why is that? How did you arrive at 90%? Was that measured, calculated, or was it just a show of hands? A PR writer asks: How can we convince the masses?
The litany of weak excuses:
The key problems? The list is long but includes a cold winter in Europe, the distant impacts, the failure of the December 2009 UN climate change Copenhagen summit to produce a binding international agreement, public confusion about whether there is a reliable scientific consensus, and alarmist media coverage with Hollywood-horror headlines like “Be Scared; Be Very Scared!” that are more likely to induce the purchase of popcorn than solar panels.
…the issue has become newsworthy at a time when many newsrooms have been downsized while servicing an accelerating 24-hour news cycle. Not enough people. Not enough expertise. Not enough time.
Forgive me for saying I told you so
Even as newspapers were avoiding Climategate, I predicted that everything had changed, that this virus would be unstoppable, and 11 months later, Margo proves my point. The impact of Climategate is far-reaching and still unfolding.
O’Neill’s honesty about the soul-searching is refreshing. But, the story is loaded with the ritual caveats that show she is still part of the tribe. She assumes the emails were hacked, but they could just as easily have been leaked.
Given the underlying science has been exonerated in successive inquiries…
None of the inquiries even seriously investigated the science.
Then there’s the actual climate. If the scientists and insurance companies are right, it will produce increasing horror temperature…
Who are “the scientists”? I can name more scientists who declare man-made global warming to be a wild exaggeration than she can name who think impending catastrophe is inevitable.
A commenter Paul wonders why she even mentioned insurance companies in the same sentence:
If the “insurance companies” are right? What an odd comment – their input is irrelevant. They MAKE MONEY by selling fear – they are currently making millions in increased premiums by leveraging off climate change hysteria and to top it off most policies won’t even pay out in the event of a “natural” disaster!
Then here’s a whopper of an admission:
…there are many different kinds of sceptics and a range of other debates. Some say they wished they had engaged credible sceptics earlier.!!!
Finally, at least some environmental journalists realize that some skeptics have a point, but as usual, not many seem to be rushing to actually interview people like Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, John Christie, Will Happer, Ivar Gievar,…or Steve McIntyre, or Anthony Watts either.
Most likely, the word is “credible” — and that goes to the heart of the problem. How do they define credible? If they are still holding out for Nobel Prizes and Ivy league university professors (which some of the aforementioned are), that’s a sign of the problem that got them into this mess in the first place .
What makes someone credible is not their office or degree, it’s that they don’t break laws of reason, they can cite evidence, answer questions convincingly, and they are internally consistent.
The newsworthiness of climate change has lost a lot of it’s appeal:
Where did all the climate change stories go? “The [programmers] are against it because it loses ratings,” says a senior BBC journalist. “The wave [of public interest] has gone. There is climate change fatigue. That is why I am not [reporting] it now.”
Other journalists agree. Even reporters at The Guardian, which especially targets environmental reporting, complain that it’s difficult to get a run. Another UK broadcast journalist said he was warned that putting climate change on prime time would risk losing a million viewers.
But, O’Neill (and apparently the rest of the enviro-pr-journalistic world) misses the key role of a journalist: to ask good questions:
Climate change is a multi-disciplinary story that requires at least some knowledge ranging from science and energy policy to potential military deployments, from coastal development to diplomacy and to mass biodiversity loss, to name a few. A BBC correspondent said it is arguable that journalists need qualifications in science, politics and economics to straddle the demands of climate change reporting.
No, as long as they can write well, they can be lawyers, doctors, engineers, teachers, or well-read car mechanics. They don’t need to “know” anything more than how to ask relentlessly probing questions, along with understanding the basic rules of logic and reason. It sure helps to be able to spot cheats and frauds. Big clues to look for next time: When people hide things…when they argue from authority, when people get angry and call their critics names (denier), or launch ad hominem attacks, when they get caught adjusting the data and they can’t explain exactly why…
Margo thinks maybe journalists might have failed on climate change somehow
I’d say no, not at all. Not if their aim was to protect their religious beliefs. They concealed the flagrant breaches of scientific standards, the lack of empirical evidence, and the sheer vast number of skeptics from every other branch of science.
If they had reported the full story of the seedy corruption in science, the misplaced thermometers, the lost records, and the bogus graphs, then thousands of people would have fled from the cult of climatism. The fact that man-made global warming is not yet known as the modern Piltdown debacle of science and politics is a testament to the ability of well-meaning, poorly trained “journalists” to censor the news and keep relentlessly pumping the UN PR.
It’s time (about 30 years past) that science journalists were better trained.
Thanks to Stephen H for pointing me at this ABC piece. Tiny URL: http://tiny.cc/rhr8q
Journalists, like scientists, are subject to the same human frailties as everyone else. One of these is the remarkable ablity to ignore reality in favor of an alternate that’s preferable for ideological reasons. This is most common among political journalists, all of whom are naturally biased towards one side or another, whether they admit it or not. Politics has the property where more than one side can be correct and more than one side can be wrong, all at the same time, while your side sees only what’s right in your position, while the other side sees only what’s wrong, and visa versa.
The politicalization of climate science has had the unfortunate side effect of applying the fuzzy nature of political truth to scientific truth. Luckily, not all journalists have succumbed to this human flaw.
Thanks Jo,
George
10
Republicans gaining control of The House of Representatives offers real hope of exposure of the whole charade. The intent to hold no-nonsense hearings has already been announced by several Republicans, including John Boehner, who is virtually certain to be elected Speaker. He will have a lot of power over what happens by virtue of that office.
10
Journalism in this area is degenerate PR work. It was an easy life as long as you went with the flow. A few, Ms. Nova being one, chose the road less travelled.
Pointman
10
I agree with your post, but I think the word “journalist” is being used far too generously. I cannot speak for Australia, but I am hard-pressed to point to a journalist in the United States these days. Certainly, there are absolutely none on television. Most so-called journalists are simply advocates for one position or another spinning the news to fit their opinions.
10
I think the environmental journalists have had a bit of a rough ride this year. First there was “Climategate” as you mentioned. The good guys turned out not to be telling the whole story followed by referencing using advocacy in the IPCC rather than peer reviewed literature. Then there was the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP was the enlightened “green” energy company looking beyond petroleum and saying all the right things to environmental reporters about the future of energy. The blast in the Gulf was the FIFTH major incident from this company in the last 5 years and we learn that BP has one of the worst safety and environmental records of the major multinational oil companies. (Ironically Exxon-Mobile is best). Environmental reporters then had to deal with the 10:10:10 fiasco last month from a group it had held in high regard. On top of that, many news outlets are getting rid of their environmental reporters entirely. Environmental reporters unfortunately seemed to be environmentallists first and reporters second. This biased their coverage and is no small part part of their grief in being duped.
10
The BBC’s Jeremy Paxman On Iraq – “We Were Hoodwinked”
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/091106_the_bbcs_jeremy.php
BBC Newsnight special on climategate emails:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCywd57BmsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-c5fnHo7Qg
10
Funny how Margot’s introspection failed to look at her own organisations woeful efforts in reporting climate science. No mention that even her chairmen recognised the ABC had been taken over by a groupthink culture when it comes to reporting climate. Nothing much has changed at ABC its just rhetoric.
10
I think the environmental journalists have had a bit of a rough ride this year. First there was “Climategate” as you mentioned. The good guys turned out not to be telling the whole story followed by referencing using advocacy group’s literature in the IPCC rather than peer reviewed literature. Then there was the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP was the enlightened “green” energy company looking beyond petroleum and saying all the right things to environmental reporters about the future of energy. The blast in the Gulf was the FIFTH major incident from this company in the last 5 years and we learn that BP has one of the worst safety and environmental records of the major multinational oil companies. (Ironically Exxon-Mobile is best). Environmental reports had simply swallowed the green wash. Most recently the enviromental reporters then had to deal with the 10:10:10 fiasco last month from a group it had held in high regard. On top of that, many news outlets are getting rid of their environmental reporters entirely. Environmental reporters unfortunately seemed to be environmentallists first and reporters second. This bias in their coverage is no small part a source of their grief in being duped.
10
Sorry everyone, I thought I had hit the preview button, not the post.
10
Journalism as a whole is not ever going to come out and admit they’ve been duped. They’re simply going to continue pushing the issue further into the back pages until it is all but forgotten.
In the meantime they’ll roll out the next imminent manmade disaster, slowly at first but then with increasing and accelerating urgency.
Even if the climate catastrophe were true, it would take too long for it to occur and people would get bored by it – people are already bored with it. It’s about as exciting as watching a tree rot.
10
Ok,
A few weeks ago, I was on a plane and happened to be sitting next to an ABC producer. The producer explains they’re going home after “catching up with the boys”.
During a normal course of chit chat, I explain to her how I no longer get my information from the mainstream news and that I would rather filter through the cr*p on the net myself. The producer seemed a little shocked when I mentioned that. The producer was also pretty shocked when I explained the reasons why – i.e. a complete lack of good investigative journalism here in Australia imo.
The producer then starts going on about china and how the growth in china is damaging the worlds environment and depleting the worlds precious resources.
I explain that it’s really not such a good idea to complain about that sort of thing after conducting a frivolous trip on a plane for the purpose of “catching up with the boys”.
Was I being offensive? I wish the flight was longer. the producer couldn’t escape.
10
Finally, the truth is becoming known. However, it’ll take some time before we all get justice and major criminal investigations take place worldwide for the continuing fraud of taxpayer dollars. It’s a huge step for anyone in the ABC to admit scepticism. Will SBS be next?
10
MadJak @ 9:
Thoroughly agree with your comments to the producer – I could have said the same regards preferring the net to MSM. The net enables you to drill right down to the source.
Good, balanced, investigative reports (such as this one) are seldom found on television or in newspapers. They all seem to be interested in not causing a ruckus. They are happy to report on the latest disaster or political shenanigans, but there is little if any investigation, much less presenting both sides of a matter.
10
Unfortunately the journalists are no different from the rest of society. We now have huge social group who believe that putting solar panels on their roof is going to save the planet, that we can run the world on alternative energy, that we should all be vegetarians and the most important task is to save the whales. This group is well paid, well educated and is becoming a pain in the a…
George Carlin sums them up perfectly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
10
Subject: Gillard’s California dreaming….
THE ECONOMY OF CALIIFORNIA HAS BEEN DECIMATED THANKS TO THIS GREEN SCAM!
NOW LABOR WANTS TO DO THE SAME TO AUSTRALIA!!
NO WAY!!!!!!!
Look to California’s success in putting a price on carbon, Julia Gillard urges Laurie Oakes:
LO: Is there a point in us going ahead now that America has dumped the idea?
JG: Laurie, emissions Trading Schemes, or prices on carbon, different ways of tackling climate change are being developed around the world. And yes, different countries are finding different paths, many have gone down the path of pricing carbon, you are talking now about America. California has had a way of pricing carbon for quite a long period of time now. (http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4844:julia-gillard-pm-interview-today-on-sunday&catid=134:news-wire&Itemid=247)
So we look to California:
With one in every eight workers unemployed and empty state coffers, California is borrowing billions of dollars from the federal government to pay unemployment insurance. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/07/state/n100503S24.DTL#ixzz14ird3nCt)
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_california_dreaming/
10
Yet another Gillard promise off to the junkyard!!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yet_another_gillard_promise_off_the_junkyard/
10
nearly a year ago, i “predicted” on WUWT that it would be unwise and unprofitable for the media to continue producing programs pushing the CAGW “official” line because the public would no longer buy it….despite the MSM gatekeeping on Climategate. of course, they did the opposite and intensified their advocacy, in every possible program, in every possible way, and are paying the price.
CAGW gatekeeper supremo, NYT’s andy revkin, has another extraordinary “piece” today, self-referential as always in a Monbiot-style, with CAGW team players bouncing off one another to reinforce their message. even Neela, whose piece was first published in the LAT, rather than the Chicago Tribunee, is a “former colleague” of andy’s. it is so incestuous!
7 Nov: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Scientists Join Forces in a Hostile Climate
The news was first reported by Neela Banerjee of the Los Angeles Times (a former colleague)…
This came up when I taught a graduate seminar at Bard College on communication and environmental policy in 2007, the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rolled out its fourth report.
I divided the class into two groups. One had to defend the presentation style of Susan Solomon, the co-leader of the climate panel’s science report team. Solomon rebuffed reporters trying to get her to interpret the findings and said her job was to lay out the science, not discuss how to respond. The other group defended James Hansen, the NASA climatologist who has become a passionate advocate for a quick end to coal combustion…
If a scientist wants to join the policy fray and retain credibility, a vital step is to distinguish between assertions supported by data and those framed by personal values.
Nobody explained this better than Stephen H. Schneider of Stanford University, who passed away this year after decades of work on climate science, communication and policy…
There’ll be more from my Schneider files on uncertainty and climate down the line.
[*The post has been corrected to reflect that Scott Mandia teaches at Suffolk County Community College, not Stony Brook University. It has also been updated to clarify that the “rapid response” team is separate from the American Geophysical Union’s project; the team is being organized by Mandia, Abraham and colleagues.]
[3:13 p.m. | Updated * I intended to convey irony with the term “Schneidergate,” in that these e-mails are the antithesis of what anyone searching for clues to a climate conspiracy would want. Steve would have chuckled (here are his thoughts on “Climategate”), but some readers have complained, so I’ll be dropping that term going forward.]
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/scientists-join-forces-in-a-hostile-climate/?partner=rss&emc=rss
in the 70+ comments, i saw not a single complaint on the use of “schneidergate” (or should i say, the computer did not “find” the word in any comment), yet andy is dropping the term “going forward”. “deniers”, on the other hand,is everywhere to be found in the comments by the faithful.
give thanks for the Internet and the integrity of jo, big mac, anthony, the bishop for championing the scientific method.
10
I can see James Bond was the best prediction of the future. The worst villain was Auric Goldfinger and in reality it is Goldman Sachs. Equally the same villain in Tomorrow Never Dies is a medial tycoon as well as in the real life. I hope Ian Fleming is writing something about alarmistic pseudo-science plot to take over word in cooperation with the Goldfinger Goldman and Jonathan Pryce Murdoch.
10
I noted in Margot’s piece that she mentions that the IPCC was the preferred source for information on global warming. I read this on the same day I read that Scientific American’s poll says 81.3% of respondants say the IPCC is a “corrupt – subject to group think and a political organisation.” Seems journalsist must be the other 18.7%
I wouldn’t take this cri de ceour from Margot too seriously – did any one see in the MSM the reports of the closure of the Chicargo Carbon Exchange? They still dont get it.
10
MADJACK: spot on comment. And JO thank you for that about a well read car mechanic, yes for 25 years now and for 20 of them i have said no to the AGW crowd and when my kids were in school i would get to hear the AGW storys from them,what they were told by the teachers and i would show them a new way of looking in to it. There is to many unawsered questions and what ifs for any one to ever say we have a problem. Climate changes always has always will and humans are to small of a spot on this planet to do much about it. MY son now 17 was in 6th grade the school had some people in to tell them about AGW and gave them the whole spiel about CO2 and the polar bears and what not and i explianed to him the same concepts i taught my older girls ask questions ask for proof, needless to say he was removed from the class when he did ask the questions instead of sit there an be qietand believe what he was told!
10
Well if environmental journo’s are feeling “betrayed” let me bleed big drops of crocodile tears or something.
The data is there, on the web, for all to see. When Climategate broke, that’s what I looked at. Very rapidly came to the conclusion that the “its all due to humans and we’re going to fry” hypothesis was rubbish.
Journalists should somewhere in their DNA still have an investigative gene. Use it, idiots!
(‘pology Jo, I know your investigative gene is very much alive and well!)
10
“Cheated”, “betrayed”, “you told me the science was settled”…
From the shifty scientist/blogger Judith Curry, down to the humblest junior journalist, the recanting warmists are keeping their indignation and sense of victimhood.
These are the very people with the time and means to ascertain obvious truths that any elderly farmer or professional fisherman could tell them for free in the local pub.
Our journalists, as a corps, have been monstrously wrong, and the fact that some higher-up trough-swillers like the IPCC led them astray is no excuse. They’re paid to look into things, yet seem to be far more naive than the most witless and juvenile of their readers.
When you’re twelve years of age, you might be imrpressed by institutions with names out of Superman comics: names like The United Nations, for example.
After that, you’re supposed to grow up and do some of your own thinking.
10
Incidentally,
” A commenter Paul wonders why she even mentioned “insurance companies” in the same sentence: If the “insurance companies” are right? What an odd comment – their input is irrelevant. They MAKE MONEY by selling fear ”
Funny but that is what journalists do too. MSM makes money by selling fear.
They have as big a vested interst in the global warming thing too. I dont think they will back off too quickly until someone can come up with a more lucrative angle to follow.
10
well, well, well –
“milwaukee bob” posted this on WUWT:
8 Nov: AGU: Inaccurate news reports misrepresent a climate-science initiative of the American Geophysical Union.
AGU Release No. 10–37
8 November 2010
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON—An article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, and then picked up by media outlets far and wide, misrepresents the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and a climate science project the AGU is about to relaunch. The project, called Climate Q&A Service, aims simply to provide accurate scientific answers to questions from journalists about climate science.
“In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,” says Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union. “AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development.”
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-37.shtml
as they say, the story has already gone “far and wide” – NYT, WaPo, AFP, USA Today, Guardian, Minneapolis Star Tribune (do a search on “neela banerjee” for the links).
meanwhile, over at MSNBC we have:
8 Nov: MSNBC Cosmiclog: Alan Boyle: Life after Climategate
photo caption: Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann focuses on the politics as well as the science behind global warming
If anyone thinks that climate scientist Michael Mann has been cowed by last year’s controversy over stolen e-mails, known as Climategate … or by last week’s election, which could lead to congressional hearings that target Mann and his colleagues … well, think again.
“They can threaten whatever they want,” the Penn State professor told me on Sunday, after his talk at the New Horizons in Science meeting at Yale University. “I’m quite confident to fight those sorts of witch-hunt attempts.”…
Although Mann didn’t exactly say “Bring it on,” he did note that “those on the other side of the aisle will see this as an opportunity.” He doesn’t think scientists will be pushed on the defensive by their congressional critics.
“We should look at this as an opportunity for offense,” he said…
“The ice sheets are not Republican or Democrat,” Mann said. “They don’t have a political agenda as they disappear.”…
Mann praised the American Geophysical Union for setting up a “rapid response task force” to parry efforts aimed at discrediting climate scientists. He said journalists also should exercise their traditional role as a “critical and independent arbiter” of the policy debate, particularly in the midst of “politically motivated inquiries that we haven’t seen in this country since the 1950s.”
It might sound as if Mann relishes the fight, but he acknowledged that life after Climategate has not been easy for him. His routine now includes dealing with veiled death threats as well as investigations such as the one in Virginia…
Mann is doing less research, and more speaking and writing. (For example, he’s one of the scientists behind the RealClimate blog.)
“I spend quite a bit of time these days on what I might generously describe as outreach,” he told me. “I think not every scientist should be doing this — but more scientists should.”
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/08/5426675-life-after-climategate
incredible, as always.
10
Unfortunately not enough soul searching at the “New Scientist” here.
Apologies if this has been covered here, but in last week edition’s Opinion piece, Michael Mann gets a free kick at Ken Cuccinneli in “Watch out, Denialists about”. Fair enough – he has a right to defend himself, but unfortunately still by the same garbage “front groups for fossil-fuel industry”, “well funded campaign against climate science”, “climate change deniers”.
Most interesting is his defence of the “case for human influence on climate change”. Is it finally the physics? The new satelite data? No.
Yes, folks, after 30 years, the main argumnent still is: we can make our models correlate so they must be right.
10
Yep the climate change hype machine is still going strong and seems to be wanting to get our young..
See Fighting Climate denial at a local level
The NCSE helped greatly with the fight against teaching creationism in school, is it time to start the same kind of program for climate denial? I would say so. With nearly all elected Republicans stating that they are climate deniers, its clear that the public has not gotten the message that the science is all on the side of man made global warming.
Just evil – no other word for it. Children should be given the chance to make up their own mind, and when shown the facts as is, they can easily see through the smoke screen.
I run my own blog on environmental and climate change issues – but doing it from the point of view of showing up the silliness going on and supporting the real practical and science based efforts being undertaken that actually result in something really Green happening (or as I term it ‘Real Green’). At the moment its about 4 to 1 split in favor of reporting all the silliness going on…
10
to pointman@3:
I would change that sentence to a “brave few”.
There who have argued with the official line have been attacked by the ratpack.
I think the solution is to make some secondary school science mandatory and improve our education system. It is clear that many journalists are under educated.
10
Gillard is not on her own in imposing climate change fraud on Australia. Here is a UN group that collects money from your local council and imposes Agenda 21 on your area without your vote or permission.
They are called “International Council for Environmental Initiatives”. They are unelected and not voted on but they take over all development in councils that agree. They represent the UN and their mission is to impose Sustainability on all regions of the world. That is what they think is sustainable, not what locals know is sustainable.
Wonder how the Victorian bushfires were so bad? I bet these clowns were running the local council agendas.
So Gillard thinks she is safe in imposing a destructive tax based on a scam on Australia because these socialists have been imposing the conditions since 1998.
Here is the link to the contact page for this UN anti Australian treasonous group:-
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-contact-us
ADD THEM TO YOUR “SPECIAL” EMAIL LIST!
Link to AGENDA 21…..
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
Read it and be very very afraid!
10
@David Burgess: November 9th, 2010 at 8:56 am
David, point take. The word may not be there but the sentiment is. That road is only ever for the brave.
Pointman
10
Completely agree, but unfortunately authority is more often than not determined, or assigned, by social rank, than it is by a record of achievment and objectivity.
The mainstream media derives its credibilty and authority by aligning itself with the existing power structures in society, not by questioning those power structures. So what the journos have done regarding climate change is unfortunate, but mostly predictable.
10
Pat,
Congress may be able to hurt Michael Mann a lot. He’s a at a public University which gets money from the federal government. But aside from that he should also fear the exposure that testifying under oath will bring him.
Mann is not invincible.
10
What a great post. Though it seems some
still can’t be dragged to reality, more are
finally seeing the light. With the elections
here in the U.S., we are poised to kill this
zombie once and for all. I want to thank
you and David for reminding us Yanks who
we are. Your sometimes not so gentle kicks
in our backsides were necessary. You helped
shock us awake and exposed a much larger
agenda. I expect, in the next few years, an
enlightenment and am truly sorry so many
who have gone down the pathway of old
ideologies will not be able to participate.
All the best and thanks,
Dave
10
I see a basic problem with journalism. At school they usually
1) drop maths (logic) at age 16 so cannot do numbers and
2) don’t do sciences. The pure sciences rely on facts, observation and critical thinking which are all rather useful to a reporter.
I’m preparing a climate talk and find the translation of my collected material into an easily understood short lecture is quite testing as I was never all that hot on languages. However, if I had no science base, the task would be beyond the realms of possibility. Surely this is the journalists’ problem. They are not guilty of anything, – they are simply incapable.
10
It looks like the activists in the climate science cadre are about to do some real activism….
should be good for a laugh
BTW: An easy way to spot AGW propoganda is to do a search for “Hacked emails” if it comes up, it’s advocacy, not reporting.
10
Example of sloppy, lazy, cut ‘n’ paste journalists.
Osama Bin Toner attempted to send a couple of bombs via UPS flights out of Yemin, or so the story goes. About a week later the story gets center page spread in my local newspaper pathetically called “The Adelaide Advertiser”. Problem is a day after the discovery of so called bombs it was made known that UPS do not fly out of Yemin and yet here is the “AA” telling everyone they do.
There was a time when you needed special skills to be a journo now all you need is to type, no not touch type the hunt and peck method will do fine.
To me all journos are now simply gossip columnists in that they print a story that has a morsel of truth but the rest is simply made up to keep the populace happy. As a previous poster said AGW will fade into the background.
10
A REFRESHER COURSE
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain critical reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives.
Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just aren’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics.
If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish.
If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance
They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity
They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial
They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions
An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal.
But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.
You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent
There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant
There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Remarkably, even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
10
I am waiting from the next excuse from these green communists as to why there hasn’t been any warming!
Something along the lines of “THE VOLCANO ATE MY GLOBAL WARMING”……
10
Why is it so few people could see the “crap on the wall”, yet the media did a “damn fine job” in pushing the “green crap” we all are now paying for?
To the point some countries are trapped into buying thin air…
10
Mia Nony,
I live in Sth Australia so we get bombarded with gov. ads about the plight of the Murray-Darling River system and the farming that relies on it. It used to be because of AGW and how we should all tighten our belts water wise, for the future looked grim (continued droughts etc).
Now we are being bombarded with a slightly different ad, the ad begins with “Despite recent rainfall the Murray-Darling river system is still in danger……..”
Are they saying despite heavy rains across the region and New South Whales being decared drought free nothing has changed because we need more rain? or are they saying despite heavy rains across the region and New South Whales being decared drought free AGW is still lurking and the drought will be back? We will never know.
My question to you Mia is where would this obvious bullshit from government fit in your excellent post 36.
TIA
Crakar
10
Mia Nony @ 36 Very good!
Sounds like “Rules for Radicals” paraphrased Saul Alinsky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
I wonder a great deal about Obama the “community organizer” and Saul…….
10
Excellent article Jo…. and the Pilt-down man reference is bang on the money. I was noticing that likeness with AGW a few years back.
You are also spot on about people and their ability to spot Journalists and their critical shortcomings….. As you said, people don’t need to be scientists to spot hypocrisy, bad methodology and political propaganda when they have it thrust upon them as policy packaged in fear in order to redistribute wealth and power.
It shows just how compromised is our supposed “Forth Estate”. Journalism has become nothing more than a PR degree in our Universities for advancing Big Government, Eco Religion and Socialism….. There is no critical examination nor thinking within the Journalistic community nowadays. They are a closed shop of group thinking arrogant dupes.
10
….. I hasten to add. MOST Journalists… My critisism is not of the Jo Nova’s, Andrew Bolts, Albrechtsen’s, Ackerman’s, etc…… But as far as conservative and or critical journalists are concerned nowadays…. We could loose the entire lot in a bus crash if we put ’em on one…. and it wouldn’t even be that big of a bus either….;-)
10
cracker24:
The same add is also playing on a too regular bases on the MSM of coastal NSW, I’m sure joolya is having it pushed Australia wide. Show it enough and we’ll all believe every twisted distorted word of it. Look how successful they’ve been after years of pushing the CAGW barrow. We all believe now don’t we.
10
JPA Knowles @ 33: They are not guilty of anything, – they are simply incapable.
Yes they are guilty of something. It’s pretending that they are worthy of teaching the public about matters of which they are totally incapable of understanding by both training and philosophical inclination.
It’s painfully easy to see the difference between a statement of fact in full context and advocacy of a point of view. Journalism passed that point when the students of the subject started giving their reason for being journalists to be “to make a difference.” They thereby passed from being prospective reporters to being advocates in training. They learned well to avoid having the truth get in the way of a “good story” that would advance their “message”.
The fact is, their job is NOT to make a difference. Their job is to REPORT what is and what happened along with relevant context. It’s the job of the consumer of the reporting to take that information and to make a difference. If you want to be an advocate, BE an advocate. Don’t pretend that you are “just a reporter” who is reporting “just the facts” while manipulating your public into believing and acting as you want them to believe and act.
PS: If it is not already obvious, I am an ADVOCATE of Reason, Reality, and Logic. I hold that ANY other consideration is subordinate to those things. Further, that without them human life is not possible in the long run and will be very limited and painful in the short run.
10
Crakar24, I have been following the rainfall across AU and it seems yet another AGW prediction of continued drought falls (fails). http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=anomaly&period=3month&area=nat
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!……
10
Lionell @ 44 says:
Lionell, don’t take this in a negative way but how do love and lust weigh in here? I’d say that without them, human life is impossible in the short run and unbearable in ANY run.
10
Mark D,
Thanks for the advice i will keep it in mind.
10
crakar24 re 47,
Perhaps that should be “pay close attention to the man (men) behind the curtain”?
10
When Al Gore got up on his hind legs and announced that all the Climategate emails were over 10 years old – how many “journalists” actually checked this? Andrew Bolt was one – the rest were mostly in the blogsphere.
The journos were either lazy, corrupt or stupid. And they wonder why people don’t believe them.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
MadJak @ 11:
I had the same running battle with The Australian (I forget the chap’s name… I am a shocker with names). I kept pushing the ClimateGate story in any blog that was related to climate and they just did not want to know.
I gave them a hard time on their blog about errecting a paywall, and suggested the reason it wouldn’t work is because their news is not timely nor relevant on some issues… again case in point being the lack of coverage of ClimateGate which was being covered extensively on free blogs.
I wasn’t pushing my own barrow, just advising them that in my opinion the MSM was trivialising itself into obscurity. And so it came to pass… the MSM has positioned itself as entertainment first and news second. Actually, in truth it was always advertising first, but you get my drift. News is now a distant second or third, depending on your perspective.
10
Mark D.,
I do not deny that love and lust exist and are operative within human action. The are simply subordinate in importance to Reason, Reality, and Logic.
Take a focus on Reason, Reality, and Logic out of the picture and love is not possible because valuing is not possible. Love is an expression of one’s highest values. That requires knowledge of what is valuable, why it’s valuable, and that the person who is the object of your love actually contains those attributes. Without reason focused on understanding reality, you don’t have that knowledge. ALL you have is a chemical/hormonal reaction expressed as a drive toward sex – ie. lust. As such, the drive would be transient and be reduced to the mating of insects or rodents. Man cannot live as an insect or a rodent. Man either lives according to what he is or he will not long stay alive.
To live, man must act and be successful with his actions. To act successfully he must know the how, what, why, where, and when of the action. To know, he must use reason and logic operating on his experience of and experiments with reality. He may want to live with all of his might but without knowledge of the requirements of sustaining that life, he will not succeed.
He may, for a short time, pretend to be successful by being a parasite upon those who choose to know and act to sustain their own lives. However, that pretense comes to an end when his intended victims are no longer willing and all the easily available wealth is stolen and consumed.
10
The problem is not the journalists but their employers who by inaction allow the self-indulgent opinionating which constitutes reporting these days to go unchecked; for instance these abc reporters should be now digging ditches or something similar commensurate with their manifest qualifications:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2010/11/abcs-radio-national-big-ideas-i-dont.html#comments
10
Bulldust,
I couldn’t agree more. The lame-stream media is purely for entertainment purposes. I tuned out after seeing the lies being spewed about climategate – who were they kidding – I have the climate-gate package right here with me. ABC news, 7, nine – they’re all right down there with the Brady Bunch as far as I’m concerned.
I must admit I would watch SBS, and give them a shot, they used to be OK, but can’t get it in my area.
It used to be that some chap who was well balanced with a chip on each shoulder would investigate and expose the establishment in some sort of massive exposure for little other reason than to prove they could do it. Now they just sheepishly regurgitate the party line.
There are so many examples of where the Australian News Media really wants to be – the great Lara Bingle breakup of 2009 – or headlining on where the tiger had been hiding the sausage. Each and every time this happens, it simply continues to prove their irrelevance. There have probably been more, I wouldn’t know.
There are exceptions -like Jo and others and they’re all in the blogosphere and doing it for the love of the task at hand and the opportunity to expose the truth in a world which appears to be more and more interested in the more and more inane.
This is one of the few communities I regularly visit – not because everyone shares the same views (we all differ to some extent), but because this site seems to have the largest concentration of independant thinkers I can find anywhere. I sure wish there were more.
I sure can’t see any independent thinkers in the ABC.
10
“He may, for a short time, pretend to be successful by being a parasite upon those who choose to know and act to sustain their own lives. However, that pretense comes to an end when his intended victims are no longer willing and all the easily available wealth is stolen and consumed.”
Ahoy Lionel
I wonder if a cunning interrogator of the ABS could work out just how many productive people in Australia are generating the foriegn earnings & how many “parasites” are along for the air-conditioned ride.
Further how many of the productive industries employing those people are at risk with possible Carbon Taxes that the Real Julia v2.2 can’t wait to levy?
10
List of members of this despicable United Nations “International Council for Environmental Initiatives”:-
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454
It makes for interesting reading!
See if you can see your local council listed!
It might explain some of the communistic things they have been doing……
10
Pattoh
I like it Centurion!
Cheers,
Speedy
10
BY my count the correct version is 3.1
10
I wonder if gillard is under VERSION CONTROL…..
10
The journo’s are under pressure to meet deadlines and under pressure from Editors, who themselves are under pressure from their media owners, who are under pressure from powerful political and corporate interests. Targeting the monkeys probably will not help…we need to go for the owners of the circus.
10
Actually, looking at Julia on her overseas visits, I think she’s currently running V0.3.1 Beta release 3.
10
I would have thought that gillard was still in an ALPHA version…..
10
Nah, she was hastily put together patch on Rudd v1.2010 that merged so badly it meant the whole system needed replacing..
10
“Climate change is a multi-disciplinary story that requires at least some knowledge ranging from science and energy policy to potential military deployments, from coastal development to diplomacy and to mass biodiversity loss, to name a few.”
Says it all, really. All of those are political rather than scientific disciplines.
10
[…] Journalists admit being duped by climate change group thinkAmazing article this; although I must admit they really only have themselves to blame as they effecting turned off […]
10
Speedy
The patches are being constantly written, issued & slapped on. However it appears that the core “maiden aunt” engine has major conflicts with the “judas nanny goat” subroutine(needed to keep the main window open). The blue screen of death is a constant fear.
In reality I think a completely new operating system may help.
10
SPeedy,
Are the new versions of Maiden Aunt or new Product variants? To me the form and fit and sometimes the function changes so much each time a lie is made that I think we’re actually looking at a completely different product line each time.
I think the database backends are hopelessly inconsistent as well. There used to be the Rudd App which would manually replicate the changes across the variants, but someone decided it was costing too much for upkeep and canned it.
I agree with Pattoh, the maintenance costs are so high we should consider a complete rewrite. It’s just going to cost too much to keep it going. Likewise the OS is showing it’s age and does need to have some revision done.
10
MadJak
I have been trying to work out how to turn off the “Elitist Fabian Function”.
However every menu circut under Help pats me on the head, tells me my maiden aunt knows best & to keep subscription paid up?????
10
Pattoh,
It looks like you’ve been hit by the Fabian Virus. Fdisk will solve the problem (it permanently fixes all viruses and software defects).
10
MadJak
I don’t think too many GenX ers would be keen on a full FDisk. They need something to keep them distracted(from harsh reality) on the odd occasion they pull their heads out of their Volvos.
10
Pattoh,
I’m a genX er, and I agree!
10
I wonder, as the scam of the hypothesis is further torn apart, will these journalarmists completely turn and admit that they had been taken in by the scam.
When will we be able to hold the treason trials?
10
Journalists begin to question the scam. BHO Himself says cap-and-trade is a dead duck.
Jooolya marches on regardless.
Rudd veered away from the cliff.
How far will Julia go before she changes course?
More importantly, how far does she expect us to go?
(Apologies for demeaning this fine animation by association)
10
The Ontario Government (Canada) is currently embarking on a campaign to “sell” renewables — to a population that does not want the high prices.
This is very similar to the disastrous 10:10 campaign. It is ill conceived and based on partial truth!
The story with commentary is here:
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/confidential-document-reveals-true-cost-of-mcguinty%E2%80%99s-energy-experiments/#comment-13110
Here is a sample that displays the group think that is necessary for a truly bad campaign — based on lies.
**************************************
Excerpts from the document:
* “In this it will be critical to ‘confuse’ the issue in the political/public/media away from just price.” (p.2)
* “Lack of considerable economic investment (jobs) to yet come online (lots of announcements to-date but few have actually been realized yet).” (p.3)
* “Residential rates will increase another 36 percent in 2012.” (p.14)
* “ Research needs to support this, and should be coordinated with MEI and OPA.” (p.7)
* “In order to talk past the noisy activists (Hey, that’s us!) and editorial positions, there needs to be a coordinated, paid, earned and social media campaign.” (p.9)
* “Further research is also required post spike in bill fury, including focus groups to colour, wording and emotion to craft effective, targeted messages”. (p.8)
* “Perception that the pro-renewable sector (industry, ENGOs, etc.) have been too quiet and need to be mobilized. This needs to be addressed immediately!” (p.4)
* “Goal is to have $300,000 in hand through contributions from developers and manufacturers to seed the campaign. Each developer asked for a financial contribution of $15,000-$30,000 to support this effort. Anonymous contributions to the campaign are possible.” (p. 11)
**************************
What is most interesting is the quality of the work that went into the original presentation. It is abysmally bad! It is indicative of the quality of the people leading the Green Energy movement and the CAGW movement. It is a must read for all those who want to see why we have the problems that we now face.
10
WillR @73,
I don’t know quite which is worse, Canada or California. But if either place gets something like that going it will end up being a good object lesson for the rest of the world.
Unfortunately it will also bring viciously hard times to the people of Ontario and California. When the price of fuel and electricity goes up so will the price of everything else, including food. The only thing that will not go up is personal income.
No matter what they try to call it, that light at the end of the green energy tunnel is the headlight of a speeding freight train.
10
Could it be that some of the journalists were fed information from enviro-activist groups, or did some of the journalists go to those group’s web sites or books and simply glean information without questioning it? The more I dig into this, the more it looks that way. I’ve even found a repetition of a particular enviro-activist talking point in New Zealand and Australian web pages from a few years ago – the same phrase I talk about in my recent article at the US Andrew Breitbart BigJournalism page – please see “How an Enviro-Advocacy Group Propped Up Global Warming in the MSM – A Nov 2 Election Connection” http://bigjournalism.com/rcook/2010/11/02/how-an-enviro-advocacy-group-propped-up-global-warming-in-the-msm-a-nov-2-election-connection/
10
Russel.
It seems to be the consequence of liberal arts majors taking enviro-science courses to fulfill science credit requirements. The reason is that such courses have a reputation for being an easy A if you parrot back the ‘teachings’. They also don’t have science prerequisites and they don’t require much, if any, actual science to complete the course work.
10
The reporters are just lazy. Falling for a PR campaign, not really, just regurgitate the PR (press release) of the warmers.
10
One of the take-home lessons to be learned from this introspection by environmental-journalists is that their belief system is still intact.
If one searches through much of the pronouncements of the CAGW establishment one finds the word “believe” frequently. The major problem with the CAGW scare is that those who believe in it, whether scientists, environmental activists, journalists, politicians or businessmen, bloggers, et al, simply do not apply the normal scepticism of common-sense, let alone the scepticism of the scientific method, to what they read or observe. An ‘optical filter’ in their minds removes all and any contrary indications or data that might call their belief into question. This phenomenon may be observed in advocates from Al Gore down and in publications of ‘scientific’ bodies from the IPCC to the Royal Society.
Case in point :
From this document, I quote : —
and this is supposed to be giving scientific support to the IPCC? It is nothing less than a poor regurgitation of the same discredited narrative, with the same assumptions, the same emphases and the same omissions of contrary data [such as the greater effect on atmospheric CO2 of cumulative deforestation than the cumulative use of fossil fuels] as that political body’s scaremongering pronouncements! They even rely on the General Circulation Models for evidence and use the increasing urgency of the IPCC’s pronouncements of doom as indicating the increased certainty of the science!
Finally, with respect to the Royal Society’s ‘Summary of the Science’, the concluding acknowledgements tell their own story : —
Perusal of that list, to my mind, tells the whole story: this is simply a PR document and its intent is to support the IPCC narrative and to give it a sort of ‘scientific’ endorsement.
I’d encourage everyone to read this document for themselves. You will read all the same old same old arguments, see no hard data proving the causation between human CO2 emissions and increased warming, no documentation but a reference to the IPCC, the usual dismissal of natural variation as insufficient, etc. If proof was needed of the advocacy role, rather than a scientific role, of this once revered organisation, their own document does that job really well for anyone who is at all knowledgeable about this debate.
Paul
10
Icman@77
If they were just lazy, they would have also regurgitated the PR of the sceptics. Even if they “just regurgitate the PR (press release) of the warmers” the are selectively promoting the falsifyed AGW hypothesis
10
This should cheer everybody. The Australian Bureau of Cirtculation released its latest audit of newspaper and magazine sales on Friday, and guess what? The papers that bought most enthusiastically into the AGW scam are shedding the most readers.
The Age — home to the easily impressed Adam Morton and Melissa Fyfe — is down to 190,000 M-F. That is what it was selling 30 years ago, when melbourne’s population was about 2.2 million. It is now almost double that figure.
In Sydney, the SMH is shedding sales at a stupendous rate. The Financial Review, which you might assume would raise an eyebrow at greenmania’s cost to the economy in general and investors in particular, is down to 72,000 — a figure so low it can no longer enter the PANPA awards as a big-city daily.
All Fairfax papers. All down. There’s a lesson in that.
10