JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Media bias — ABC, CBS exclude skeptical scientists for 1300 days

The bias is obvious in what they don’t say. Reporters are supposed to seek out and promote the most rational, well argued positions they can find. Instead they elevate themselves to defacto “science judges” and decide which scientists deserve to be heard. It could be called arrogance, or it could be called “lying by omission”.

 COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days | NewsBusters

Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.

In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC’s lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree.

Neither CBS nor ABC have included a skeptical scientist in their news shows within the past 1,300 days, but both networks included alarmists within the past 160 days — CBS as recently as 22 days ago. When the networks did include other viewpoints, the experts were dismissed as “out of the scientific mainstream” or backed by “oil and coal companies.”

CBS was the worst, ignoring skeptical scientists for 1,391 days, ever since the May 15, 2010,  “Evening News.” That night, CBS interviewed former NASA climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer during an extensive profile of alarmist meteorologist, and non-Ph.D., Dan Satterfield.

It was just 22 days ago, on Feb. 12, 2014, that CBS included an alarmist physicist, Dr. Michio Kaku on “This Morning.” Kaku is a contributor to “This Morning” and that day he warned of the “heating up of the North Pole” which “could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions.”

ABC last included a skeptical scientist 1,383 days ago. During the May 23, 2010, segment of “World News,” ABC played a brief, 23-second clip of Princeton-educated Dr. Fred Singer expressing his skepticism over man-made climate change, along with clips of two alarmist scientists. Singer’s was the only opposing view in that report and his views were actually taken from a much earlier interview aired on ABC March 23, 2008.

The ABC referred too here is the American one, not the Australian ABC. (Has anyone analyzed the local highly influential mass-media outlet?)

For those choosing networks in the US, NBC did better than either the ABC or the CBS. Of course, the evil Fox out-rates them all. Could it be those viewers hate being told what to think?

Fox News topped the cable news ratings race for the 12th consecutive year in 2013, with more total viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. Meanwhile, MSNBC slid to third place in total-day viewership while CNN hit a 20-year low in prime time.  — politico

Cue the commenters who will claim news ought to reflect the consensus. Meaning that journalists should decide who goes to air, not by reason and evidence, but because key-word surveys on specialty magazine publications suggest that there are more scientists who believe a particular, unlikely, idea. Rent out your brain, you “investigative journalists”. Government funding pays for magazine subscriptions, just like it pays for repeated irrelevant press releases. Since when was this science?

The tally of grants is an accurate proxy for political views — but it doesn’t tell us anything about the Earth’s climate.

Read more: newsbusters.org/

h/t Derek. Thanks.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (83 votes cast)
Media bias -- ABC, CBS exclude skeptical scientists for 1300 days, 9.1 out of 10 based on 83 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/p3g5fgc

232 comments to Media bias — ABC, CBS exclude skeptical scientists for 1300 days

  • #
    scaper...

    Like, does the general public take any notice of the Australian ABC?

    The place is a joke and eventually it will be on them.

    Think funding.

    272

    • #
      scaper...

      I suspect the same with the Americans. The people are waking up and in this day and age…the media are not the font of knowledge.

      220

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        As we know, the most popular climate science blog in the US is WUWT, by a country mile. The legacy media is in steep decline – the abysmal drop in journalistic standards world-wide is an indication of just how strapped for cash the MSM is. the sheeple are waking up and becoming people once more.

        ATM. I’m reading ” Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, the making of a sensible environmentalist”, by Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace. Whatever you may think of his politics and science, the man is obviously totally sincere and is transparently honest about his actions and motives. The book tells the tale of one man’s life journey, but almost as an aside chronicles the development of Greenpeace from it’s birth as a crusade to bring public attention to the way humanity mistreated the Earth to the anti-science, anti-capitalist, anti-human monster it is today.
        One of the many enlightening moments are his memories of a conversation had with one Bob Hunter, a media man and one of the original supporters of Greenpeace, on the way back from disrupting a nuclear test in 1971.
        Moore recollects Hunter as saying, “Pat, this is the beginning of something really important and very powerful, but there isa very good chance it will become a kind of ecofascism. Not everyone can get a PhD in ecology. so the the only way to change the behaviour of the masses is to create a popular mythology,a religion of the environment where people simply have faith in the gurus”. Moore ends, “today I shudder at the accuracy of his foresight.”

        So there we have it. The substitution of blind faith for a reasoned discussion over the ecology of the planet was built into Greenpeace’s future planning almost from it’s inception. I wonder if Jo’s trolls know or care as to how they’ve been hoodwinked?

        570

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Kevin I believe they will never admit to being hoodwinked, people like this will just latch on to the next cultish crusade.

          Or go back to their original one, nothing like the classics eh?

          180

        • #

          Kevin–That is such a great quote. An inability to recognize we are dealing with mythology designed to influence behavior instead of accurately reflecting reality is precisely what is driving education reform now all over the world. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/motivationally-misleading-situations-and-wicked-decision-problems-imposing-psychological-experiments-on-students/ lays out the psychological intentions that will forever guide perception of reality. Unfortunately actual reality guides the consequences of cultivating all these erroneous beliefs.

          I wrote yesterday about the renewed global interest in cybernetics as a means of using education and ICT technology to create mental images grounded in virtual reality simulations. The human control theory of cybernetics was about control of human behavior using communication. We must always remember there are 2 arms of communication to someone interested in transformation geared towards the future.

          Education is the first arm, but media is the other. By influencing what is covered, the news may appear objective and not be at all because of what is never even discussed. This shutout is a prime example because supposed AGW is the offered rationale for the transformation in the first place. Without it, the reality of a power grab is obvious.

          150

        • #
          Bones

          Good morning Kevin,Jo’s trolls will not care about being led astray because of another old saying {you can’t put brains in statues}

          120

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Hi. Just woken up to catch up. HJ’s latest semi-literate, anti-science rendering indicates that whatever the facts, there will be a few hard-of -thinking fanatics who will never recile in the face of the strongest evidence. He’s still peddling the 97% fraud fallacy despite that figure being debunked for years. It’s truly amazing how warmists cling on to that particular figment of overheated imaginations. The real 97% , those models which have failed to track reality, is studiously ignored as is so much other inconvenient empirical data. I fear you have the right of it.

            70

        • #
          danielle

          Great comment Kevin. I also find that very few of those heading up large environmental groups have any science background. They do have great skills in accessing media and running campaigns. Hence the messages we are bombarded with which misrepresent the science, but are very effective in eliciting an emotional response from the public.

          50

  • #
    Leigh

    I think Bolt with an hour this year might be able to put “the cat back amongst the pigeons”.
    He’s about the only hope the skeptics have at the minute in mainstream media in Australia.
    And that’s just so wrong.

    231

    • #
      gnome

      I watched Bolt last week, and it reminded me why I never watch channel 10 anymore. Six x six minute periods of program, separated by just under four minutes of advertisements.

      I won’t be watching it again.

      52

      • #
        The Griss

        Watch the internet vids later. That’s what I do.

        160

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Yep the internet is a major player in delivering alternate viewpoints to the public.

          Think of how many smartphones are out there sending information via social media.

          70

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        Look at the upside. All those ads are there because Bolt is hugely popular. The sceptic message is beaming into the homes of millions of Australians, that can’t be bad.

        372

      • #
        Bones

        Jesus Gnome,you are really hard to please,people go to school for years to become advertising gurus,make adds worth millions of dollars which you pay for in their products.Big industry,employs lots of people so its got to be good for the economy.After all this effort what do we get from you,a care factor of NIL,welcome to the club.I can watch a break of adds and not be able to tell you which adds were shown or what they were about.WOFTAM

        20

      • #
        JoKaH

        Record the program and fast forward through the adds when you replay it! You can also fast forward through some of the infuriating answers from the dimwit interviewees that accasionally appear.

        50

  • #
    Ross Stacey

    I remember a show where Nick Minchin? And a Greenie tried to change each other’s mind. That was not so long ago.
    Even with the ABC bias I think the public opinion is now majorly sceptical. I think it is time for Abbott to publicly reject the IPCC and show some leadership. There is enough factual science to reject spending billions on “insurance”



    Ho. Yes. See Nick and Anna and David and I in that exact show uncut post. My thoughts. Jo

    291

  • #

    Name one scientific advance which does not require a revision of the consensus.

    Einstein overturned the Newtonian consensus of immutable time, by proving time flows at different rates depending on the physical parameters of your locality.

    Quantum physics proved the universe is fundamentally random – that some events cannot be predicted.

    The list goes on.

    Excluding non consensus views is to exclude the possibility of scientific advance.

    260

    • #
      TdeF

      Good and interesting points well made. The quantum physics one is not quite right. The universe is not fundamentally random. Rather at a sub atomic level you are dealing with probabilities, the consequences of which are quite predictable to high precision. None of this impacts the macro level of chemistry and mechanics where everything is quite predictable to high precision. The universe is not random. Time also flows at a constant rate within any given system, but is perceived at a different rate in other systems, dependent on the relative speed.

      80

      • #

        I’m aware the speed of light is constant for everyone, and quantum states are probability constrained, so mabe I should have been more concise :-) .

        60

        • #
          Rick Bradford

          And Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, as I recall, so the overturner was himself overturned*.

          There used to be a name for this — it was called ‘science’.

          Too bad the Left/Green activists took it over and ruined parts of it.

          * some poetic licence taken there, of course….

          20

      • #

        TdeF I think you are not quite correct. The Velocity of sound in a fluid depends on the fluid properties particularly the heat capacity at constant volume, the pressure and the density. Light is refracted and absorbed by the fluid water. There is no light in the ocean below 2000m Light is also scattered and absorbed by dark clouds which have particles of ice and droplets of water. The velocity of light through a clear fluid or transparent solid is less than the calculated velocity of light in a vacuum which is said to be a universal constant. However, there is much mention of dark energy in space and around us. There is actual measured evidence that gravity waves exceed the velocity light. Some have linked gravity waves or gravity energy with the dark energy. The calculated velocity of light could be defined as that velocity through a vacuum containing dark energy in our vicinity of the sun.
        There is no consensus about quantum dynamics. Einstein himself expressed doubts.
        In mathematics one can make assumptions about imaginary numbers (complex numbers), states, particles etc. The answers could be correct but the assumptions may be wrong. With AGW the assumptions about CO2 are wrong and so are the assumptions about the mechanisms of heat transfer from the earth’s surface(convection and evaporation/condensation are dominant not radiation)

        10

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          Cementafriend. Is there any indication of any other part of the EMP spectrum apart from visible light below 2000 m. I wouldn’t expect UV, but what about IR and longer frequencies?

          00

        • #
          TdeF

          The whole business of light speed is in a vacuum. Only in a vacuum. Light in any other medium is a completely different topic.

          Electricity in copper moves at near light speed, but it is not light. (important for the ridiculous NBN amazing fascination with fibre which is not much used in electronics) The way you check whether something is right is by making a prediction and then checking it. Then varying one element at a time to prove the model, if possible. Alternatively wait for one element to vary anyway.

          Right and wrong is also a relative concept as you are trying to create an adequate model for prediction, not an explanation. Light is simply not anything else, so all you have are models. In mathematics, you try not to make assumptions, but in the spirit of Rene Descartes, to build on certainty. Imaginary numbers are not imaginary at all but a vector with two components, used extensively in talking about light where you have electricity and magnetism in harness in a rotating vector around the direction of travel. You could not invent such magic, but it works.

          00

          • #

            TdeF what I was trying to say is that what we think of as a vacuum may not be a true vacuum of nothing and there maybe a medium through which light passes at reduced speed and in other parts of the universe the medium could be different. Professional astronomer Dr Tom Van Flandern in his book Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets points to evidence that what he calls gravitons move faster than light.
            Then talking about assumptions, Shing-Tung Yau (one of the most respected mathematicians) in his book The Shape of Inner Space makes assumptions of 6 additional dimensions to explain Calabi-Yau manifolds and string theory. The Big Bang theory makes the assumption that there was a singularity of immense energy which exploded some 14 billion years ago. Some creationists like that assumption as it fits their belief.
            Assumptions are often made within a belief system. One could say that AGW is a belief that “mankind” is wicked and out to destroy the world. The believers set out assumptions which fit there belief.

            20

  • #

    If there is a truth, or a proposition that is supported by overwhelming evidence, encouraging people to examine the counter arguments can only help. For instance, claims that the holocaust did not happen can be compared against many different and independent sources that it did. Or in criminal law, a jury will have more confidence in the prosecution’s overwhelming case if they can compare against the often fanciful accounts that the nicely dressed person in the dock relates in defence. The Anglo-Saxons appreciation this over a 1,000 years ago when they evolved the “trial by jury” system. The general public will trust the decision of the court if the prosecution has to present their case and can be challenged on the evidence presented.
    Conversely, books about crazy conspiracy theories, ignore evidence, or alternative interpretations of events. Where they do allow for alternatives, the authors often misinterpret the counter-arguments or they think up weak excuses to dismiss those ideas. These crazy ideas don’t take hold where there is plenty of competition from alternative interpretations. It is only when the alternatives are suppressed that these crazy ideas take hold.
    The media have never learnt what many in history came to realise. You cannot convince people of your argument by blocking out alternative points of view. In every case I can think of from history it has been to support views that most today would view as wrong or morally inferior to those most would hold today. The consistent blocking of alternative ideas will lead to distrust and authority of the media in attaining impartiality, just as the denial of the right to a fair trial leads to distrust of the judicial system in achieving justice.

    80

    • #
      PeterK

      And that is why hear-say evidence is totally useless. Like the old saying, “just the facts ma’m.” Unless you can provide the actual proof to substantiate your claim (like global warming), spouting off hot air doesn’t make is so!

      70

  • #

    I remember a comment on the ABC a few years ago along the lines of why don’t sceptics understand that burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide and that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation. I’m sure that the poster new better but couldn’t care less.

    70

    • #
      Ceetee

      Vic, there is avery real possibility that the poster did not know better.

      90

      • #
        The Griss

        “a very real possibility that the poster did not know better.”

        There are some good examples that visit this site. :-)

        PS, HJ/MtR, BA4 etc

        51

    • #
      TdeF

      What is puzzling is that burning produces two gases, CO2 and H20.

      H20 is by far the greater greenhouse gas as it reflects light before it can even hit the earth. Who would seriously consider water a greenhouse gas, so no one says anything about H20. So the ABC say we should fear an invisible tiny component in the atmosphere while we fight through fog and rain and clouds on a planet which is 2/3 covered with water? Why is no one suggesting that H20 is a far bigger problem than invisible CO2? Because it is obviously absurd. The whole planet is covered with the stuff to a density of 4km on average and the humidity in the air can be felt and the clouds block out the sun. The logic is the same though. If CO2 is a danger, water is a terrible threat to humanity! We need a water tax, to be paid to the United Nations and onto China.

      No one would deny that water is the problem, that water produces dramatics climate change, that water is behind the hurricanes and the tornadoes and all the sleet and ice and snow. Water is the enemy. It needs to be dammed.

      120

      • #
        Mortis

        and if you breathe it in even moderate amounts it can be fatal

        :)

        80

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        TdeF,

        You weren’t supposed to notice that. They think we’re all stupid. Why burst their bubble by jerking their heads back into the sunshine — and the water vapor? ;-)

        50

      • #
        warcroft

        Water is already taxed. Air isn’t (well, wasn’t).

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          My point precisely. The dream of any government is to tax the air you breathe and it has been done. Who would ever believe a government would get away with taxing breathing?

          40

  • #
    Ceetee

    They’re journalists, a moniker that completely disguises their nefarious activities. It’s the same everywhere a so called ‘free press’ exists. I blame the sewer rats who taught them who either didn’t or deliberately misdirected them. You can’t have a cast iron Forth Estate unless they are bound to the same ethical standard of truth as (dare I say it) the scientific community.
    Every two bit dictator and political agitator has always understood that to control the message, you have to control the messenger. Why are we all acting as if what’s happening is somehow unusual or outside the norm?. We are in a battle for the truth and state run Big Media is controlling the message and I believe the majority know they are being fed a rotten fish. There is a tremendous opening for someone with heaps of cash and a genuine desire to restore journalism to a position of respect and value. Much like the many people whose names we all know are trying to do for the scientific community. This needs to happen.

    130

    • #
      Argus

      There is a tremendous opening for someone with heaps of cash and a genuine desire to restore journalism to a position of respect and value…This needs to happen.

      Unfortunately lacking “heaps of cash”, my subscription to “The Wall Street Journal” is about the best I can muster towards making it happen.

      Support “journalism” the old fashioned way. Buy their product.

      30

    • #
      john robertson

      By their actions one will know them,
      Selective coverage? Check
      Pushing a “Narrative?” Check,
      Totally owned? Check.
      The word journalist does not apply.
      Presstitute, is their true vocation.

      70

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Well, no, I don’t know anyone who’s done that sort of audit on “our” ABC.

    I certainly haven’t, but I do vividly remember Mark Colvin’s so-called interview with Ian Plimer about four years ago, when he deliberately faded out Plimer’s answers and just cranked the volume up for his own star chamber accusations.

    It was totally disgusting and is seared into my brain forever.

    If someone has enough time and interest they can maybe track that interview down and post the link here, so posters can judge for themselves.

    Me, I’m over it. What can you do with this lot?

    90

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Media bias?, pick this story apart from the UNFairfax http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/2136328/santos-coal-seam-gas-project-contaminates-aquifer/?cs=2452
    Most days I never look at this crap but know thy enemy etc….sigh

    30

  • #
  • #
    Peter Miller

    I have to admit to getting a little bit irritated by the fact that almost everyone I know agrees with me on media bias, which is mostly involved with promoting left wing agendas.

    You cannot watch, or listen to, the BBC news without hearing a comment about ‘climate change’ (once ‘global warming’ and soon to be ‘climate shift’).

    It all seems to be a classic case of crying wolf, when there is no wolf there – the more scary stuff you put out, the less people believe you.

    In fact, the more you cry wolf, the less people respect you – the two recent classic cases are: i) the US Secretary of State John Kerry – has there ever been a more incompetent diplomat? See Syria and the Crimea, and ii) Ed Davey, the UK’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, who is obsessed with destroying the UK’s economy by closing down cheap and reliable energy sources (coal fired power stations) and replacing them with expensive unreliable wind farms. No one now wants to invest in UK energy supplies as the left, represented by Ed Davey and Labour’s Red Ed Milliband, want to punish the energy producers for ‘profiteering’.

    140

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      (once ‘global warming’ and soon to be ‘climate shift’)

      Climate shift now? To (or from) what does it shift? Sounds like bull shift to me ;-)

      60

      • #
        Bones

        G’day Roy,climate shift if it were in the dictionary would be defined as’the ability move money from one pocket to another,whilst making a handsome profit for HANDLING’.We are all being hugely HANDLED.

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          OK! Now I’ve got it. Shifty climate scientists and their supporters just doing what they do.

          I should have known.

          00

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Jo, do you have, or would you consider getting, a ‘tips and notes’ page?
    You’ve been turning the light of skepticism upon pseudoscience for some time. Not just the abuses of the ‘political’ scientists and eco-loons, with their failed prophecies but all the group-thinkers, incompetents and frauds.
    Here’s an example of non-science that gets media attention. It nevertheless properly belongs with instances of perverted science rather than media bias.
    http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/osu-study-links-barbie-dolls-to-girls-thinking-they-have/article_0629c076-a4bf-11e3-8c8b-0019bb2963f4.html
    How sad that the researchers, reviewers, journal editors, media, and the general public are so profoundly ignorant of statistics that they think they can draw a statistically valid conclusion from querying a subset of 37 school girls.

    50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Even more sad that anyone thinks a Barbie Doll is so important. Parents’ job is to teach their children values. You daughter may want a Barbie Doll but it’s not a value, just a toy. Toys have a place but that place is way down the list compared with understanding what a role model really is and is not.

      My Verizon home page has the poll of the week on the very subject of Barbie as a role model. Look soon if you want to because it’ll change in a few days.

      20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And of course the study is from Oregon State University. The whole left coast of the U.S. is leaning over the Pacific precariously and I keep wondering when we’ll fall in.

      I hope there’s an early warning siren or something. ;-)

      30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The alternate explanation may be that playing with a Potato Head makes you ready to be “an associate professor in the School of Psychological Science at OSU”.

      Equally obvious is that passing a course in statistics should be compulsory before you become any sort of professor in Psychological Science, if there is such a thing.

      40

  • #
    cohenite

    The ABC is a mouthpiece for left wing and Green party agitprop and beliefs.

    Its support of AGW and active censorship of alternative viewpoints on such topics is because the cause of AGW is seen to be by right-wing and conservative forces in the West.

    This simplistic viewpoint has been enveloped in a classic noble cause modus operandi where subreption, exaggeration, lies and a complete failure to address gross errors in the AGW ‘science’ are commonplace.

    It has got worse since Jonathan Green left The Drum and was replaced by Chip Rolley. I don’t think a sceptic article has been published since Rolley, a freelance journalist, took over mid-way through 2012.

    70

  • #
    Mattb

    these news sations must be morons… there’s nothing better than at least having a token skeptic to lampoon as being a moron. It’s great TV – no wonder the viewers are turning off.

    127

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      “Moore recollects Hunter as saying, “Pat, this is the beginning of something really important and very powerful, but there isa very good chance it will become a kind of ecofascism. Not everyone can get a PhD in ecology. so the the only way to change the behaviour of the masses is to create a popular mythology,a religion of the environment where people simply have faith in the gurus”. Moore ends, “today I shudder at the accuracy of his foresight.”

      If you want to see a moron, Mattb, just looking the mirror whilst shaving.

      170

      • #
        Mortis

        You will not get much in the way of responses to comments like that one or this, EDENHOFER): “First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy” … “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”

        http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

        There is no real defense for these kinds of statements for the believers arguments so they just ignore them – willful ignorance.

        80

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        If you want to see a moron, Mattb, just looking the mirror whilst shaving.

        I suspect he does. Otherwise he might slit his throat accidentally. The problem is that he doesn’t see the reality that is MattB.

        50

    • #
      cohenite

      there’s nothing better than at least having a token skeptic to lampoon as being a moron.

      Just like you here Matty.

      70

    • #
      bullocky

      Mattb;
      ‘ there’s nothing better than at least having a token skeptic to lampoon as being a moron.”
      -
      Q&A strategy.
      -
      Spooky!

      30

    • #
      Eliza Doodle

      Soundbite reporting is so wide open to being misunderstood though, that if you don’t carefully spin it one way who knows where it may end up.

      20

    • #
      Eliza Doodle

      ” these news sations must be morons… there’s nothing better than at least having a token skeptic to lampoon as being a moron. It’s great TV – no wonder the viewers are turning off.

      The trouble is it is so much harder to find morons from among the sceptic community while it is so much easier to lampoon sceptics in absentia, whereas putting them on air just risks them coming across as normal and some truth may slip past the editing and resonate with the audience.

      Notice how the BBC now prefer to interview their own specialist correspondents on a range of topics rather than risk airing the views of anyone who really knows.

      80

    • #
      Winston

      MattB,
      It is so puzzling, but everyone who replied to your comment sounds so much more intelligent than you. Must be frustrating. I feel for you, no really I do.

      40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I think you meant Mattb.

        Think Matt+B = intelligent, whereas Matt+b fits your comment.

        20

        • #
          Winston

          Apologies to MattB,

          I didn’t mean to capitalise on the other Mattb’s inherently stupid comment.

          50

    • #
      Eddie

      Who has never known intelligence may happily never miss it.

      50

    • #
      Ceetee

      Matt you live in a bubble. You float like a butterfly and sting like one.

      00

  • #
    Tim

    “It could be called arrogance, or it could be called “lying by omission”.

    It could also be called; “Those who take someone out to lunch with a fat brown paper bag in their briefcase.”

    20

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Media Bias…hmmmmm…that can’t be true…
    What about this Ukraine Crisis?
    That can’t be media bias too?
    The US creating an uprising to overthrow a leader and put in a leader backed by the US and EU…
    And this is suppose to be perfectly fine by Russia…Being enclosed by “NATO” countries…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZhodD2p7ZE&list=UU7TvL4GlQyMBLlUsTrN_C4Q
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IliwqNWFuFs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUpwvZwUam-URkxB7g4USKpg
    http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2014/3/5/aid-for-the-ukraine-will-be-stolen-former-ukrainian-minister.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n58IwCNw–0&list=UUpwvZwUam-URkxB7g4USKpg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMPlBNLCRD0

    Canada has their nose up Obama’s bum due to the huge pipeline he has yet to decide to allow.
    So, is their bias?

    14

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Almost as long as no Cat 3 Hurricanes hitting the US – coincidence?

    80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Here is the Media Research Center if you don’t already know about it. They’ve been tracking media bias on just about every subject for a long time. If lying by omission (and a few times by commission) was a crime they could convict in any court anywhere.

    Please stay sharp when relying on this stuff because their bias may well be creeping into some of what they say. On the other hand, when they document the number of minutes (to the second) spent reporting on some very high profile scandals by the major broadcast outlets then the numbers are very convincing.

    It’s all U.S. of course, Not Australian.

    40

  • #
    James Bradley

    I’ve written this before and I’ll write this again:

    The Carbon zombies bang on about sceptics, collusion and big oil money, but sites like Jo Nova, WUWT and others exist only from private donations.

    Think about how large the resources must be to shut down AGW debate worldwide in media, education, banking and government.

    Having a voice is what it is all about so thank you Jo.

    80

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      Is there a list of donors, specifically the top 50 or something? It wuld be interesting to see where the majority of the support come from.

      04

      • #
        James Bradley

        HJ:

        Obviously the more interesting list would be that of the top 50 with resources vast enough to shut-down debate and retain zombies and trolls. If your doing this voluntarily, then your pay equals your worth.

        20

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      Also the skeptical science blog is entirely run by volunteers and donations. Most of their bloggers are published scientists and they focus on the peer reviewed science. So 2 things improved on this one.

      08

      • #
        The Griss

        SkS.. roflmao.. this is where you get your nonsense non-science.. Its all they have.

        One tiny worthless propaganda site, run by a cartoonist.

        40

      • #
        James Bradley

        HJ:

        Answered yourself again…

        “Is there a list of donors, specifically the top 50 or something? It wuld be interesting to see where the majority of the support come from.”

        20

      • #
        James Bradley

        HJ:

        “Also the skeptical science blog is entirely run by volunteers and donations. Most of their bloggers are published scientists and they focus on the peer reviewed science. So 2 things improved on this one.”

        If they had valid science you would think their bloggers would be arguing their own case on this site instead of their troll.

        50

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Who like dressing up in Nazi uniforms and publishing studies drawing conclusions with a zero population.

        00

  • #
    Mickey Reno

    Let’s not forget your Australian ABC, or Canada’s CBC, the BBC, NPR (all facets), The Guardian, Washington Post and NY Times (leading an aping pack of major city newspapers), and glossy news magazines, many of which, I’m happy to say, are rapidly losing their credibility and audiences as they peddle leftist and alarmist Gaia eco-loon claptrap. And America’s NBC is even worse than the pathetic average.

    The problem with “news” media today is that they have pretty much chosen political sides, and dropped all pretense of objectivity. I would need to drop all sense of objectivity, too, before I could embrace the proclamation of so-called “Post-Normal” science.

    70

    • #

      The News LTD papers in Australia are very balanced as in they have articles with a leftwing and rightwing or conservative bias. Some like the Courier and Advertiser tend more towards leftwing while the Telegraph is more conservative. The editor of the latter until a few years ago is now married to a Labor MP, so only leaning towards conservative for the last five years.

      The propaganda though, is that they are heavily biased and the play thing of Murdoch because they allow conservative and even rightwing opinion pieces to be published. Ridiculing the media for publishing a variety of opinions and we are supposed to look up to the Left for how intelligent people behave.

      61

      • #
        Heeby jeebies

        The national newspaper ‘The Australian’ is the most biased right wing paper in australia and was regularly calling for government change, and critisising labor and heaping praise in Abbott. It did not even attempt to display balance.

        07

        • #
          The Griss

          The Australian is the only newspaper that presents a reasonably balanced view point.. That is why it still sells. And why Murdoch sells around 70% of the newspapers in Australia.

          The Fairfax mob is dying because it is a worthless far left propaganda rag catering only to about 10% of the population.

          40

        • #
          James Bradley

          HJ,

          You defeat your own argument again…

          “The national newspaper ‘The Australian’ is the most biased right wing paper in australia and was regularly calling for government change, and critisising labor and heaping praise in Abbott. It did not even attempt to display balance.”

          You can’t claim no media bias when you can only name one voice speaking for the majority.

          50

        • #
          Angry

          “hj”, stop taking drugs and posting BS on blogs !!!

          10

        • #
          Heywood

          “the most biased right wing paper in australia”

          Guess what champ, even if you are correct (you aren’t), The Australian is not a taxpayer funded paper and can be as biased as it likes. Considering that News Ltd papers account for about 70% of the countries readership, that would indicate that they are certainly the most popular with a vast majority of the population.

          If you really want to know about bias, watch the ABC, especially Q&A, The Insiders or Media Watch. It is a real shame that we, the taxpayers, have to pay for the left wing pandering and bias on the public broadcaster.

          You are incapable of seeing the bias though. When your political ideology is so far to the left, everything just seems right.

          60

      • #
        The Griss

        “look up to the Left for how intelligent people behave”

        yeah, right.. if HJ the panic man and his incoherent propaganda bluster is any indication of how the far loonie left operates, no thanks.

        Zero intelligence there.!

        They have absolutely nothing to offer to modern society, which is why they are striving to destroy it.

        40

  • #
    PeterS

    When will the government wake up and realize that pro-Marxist organizations such as the ABC will not go away but will continue to chip away our Australian way of life? I suppose though it’s not surprising; conservative governments never react quickly enough, otherwise they would not be conservative in the first place. So, we can expect a continuation of the rise in Marxist ideologies at the detriment of our way of life. I’m already looking for another country but it’s becoming harder to find a better alternative, for now at least.

    60

    • #
      scaper...

      Tanzania. Looking to resettle there in retirement (16 years) or another Labor government. Whatever comes first.

      40

  • #

    Just had a thought – the bias in some cases might be because alarmists say more apocalyptic, viewer rating friendly statements.

    Get 2 guys, one says “it’s just weather”, the other says “it’s a sign of the end times”, maybe you invite the second guy back because viewer ratings jumped when he scared the shit out of them.

    So it might not be a conspiracy in many cases (other than notable cases such as the BBC) – just cynical self promotion tactics.

    21

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Agree. Pegging your KPI’s on short term viewer ratings is, well, short term.

      I suspect the viewer ratings have confused the managers somehow.
      “Chasing rainbows” comes to mind.

      10

  • #
    Heeby Jeebies

    Oh boy, are you ever going to have an actual science argument? Again trying to say the consensus does not matter while disputing the consensus. Consensus has occurred due to the strength of the science. To give equal weight to a few mavericks, most of them in the employ of fossil fuels or funded through think tanks is false balance and a waste of time. It would be like a journalist wishing to discuss evolution but having to give equal time to a maverick scientist who believes in the religion of intelligent design, like Roy Spencer, I think.

    Clearly this is a false argument and a waste of peoples time. AGW is strong accepted science by 97% of practising and publishing climate scientists, 100% of internationally accepted scientific organisations and less than 3% of the science cast any doubt on it. So if what you write is true then that displays sound judgement and ethical and moral behaviour on the part of these media organisations. The ones that do the opposite, like Murdochs media have bias for profit.

    The old false rich scientists and government grant argument, how pathetic. Science is a competitive field, you don’t get ahead unless you come up with something new and science journals don’t sell without real science content. Also most governments are now anti science, look at Australia and Canada. In Australia with a government shutting down everything environmental it can get its hands on, our prime science agencies just released a comprehensive climate science report. The shut down climate commission kept going with crowd sourced funding. Your government argument and rich scientist with grants has no legs, most politicians supporting the science lose their jobs and have not benefitted financially, eg, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rude, and Malcolm Turn bull.

    You have no science and your arguments are all shallow and illogical.

    126

    • #
      The Griss

      “Clearly this is a false argument and a waste of peoples time”

      Self analysis again. !

      Yes you are a waste of time with your false arguments.

      101

    • #
      The Griss

      “You have no science and your arguments are all shallow and illogical.”

      And yet more self analysis , by HJ..

      You are finally beginning to realise just how shallow and illogical you are.. Well done.

      91

    • #

      The models did not predict the pause, because nobody is allowed to improve them. If you question even minute details such as climate sensitivity, you are branded a maverick denier.

      If the models had predicted the pause, if the were doing a really good job of predicting future climate, there would be very little room to question their function. The reality though is the models do such an appalling job of prediction, it is a wonder anyone takes them seriously.

      98% wrong, and counting.

      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nterview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

      101

      • #
        The Griss

        And if the temperature does continue to decline, as the real scientists are saying, the models are going to look even worse. (if that’s possible)

        91

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          The models are already 95% inacurate. At this point they are already worthless.

          We need to get away from the models and start looking at data records over a period of time.

          50

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        Eric, you’ve made a good point. Warmism is run through with it’s own peculiar streak of Luddism which denies the reality of low sensitivity to atmospheric CO2, even to the point of altering past temperature records to make a fit. And they have the effrontery to call sceptics flat-earthers!

        40

        • #
          Heeby jeebies

          the pathetic conspiracy theory defense because of a lack of science. So every temperature data set is corrupt around the whole world? That is impressive, does that even include spencers satelite data, which shows the same trend? Wow, he does a good job of pretending to not accept the science, oh wait, he doesn’t accept the science, he prefers the religion of intelligent design. Hmm so who is ignoring what now? Yes I would call that kind logic a flat earther. Do you have a scientific argument?

          08

          • #
            The Griss

            All the data history shows that the temperature records have been massively altered.. You ought to spend some time actually looking at what the data tells you is the case

            Its been modified so much that the whole of the northern hemisphere could be covered in snow, and still the place would still register as a bove average temperature.

            You still haven’t answered the question.

            The period 1915-1945 warmed significantly faster than the period 1977-2007 in the un-adjusted data. There was a lot more CO2 and a series of very strong solar peaks iduring the latter period.

            So what caused the warming from 1915-1945, and why did it warm at a smaller rate during 1977-2077 despite the CO2 and strong solar activity.?

            60

          • #
            The Griss

            “which shows the same trend?”

            Actually since the 1998 ElNino settled at the beginning of 2001, the UHA data is the only one showing a slightly positive trend. The others are basically dead flat.

            The reason for this is that UHA didn’t register as much gain from the ElNino and has since caught up to RSS. RSS shows a distinct downward trend.

            Again, you should actually look at the data and stop blustering away like a chimpanzee crossed with a parrot.

            50

      • #
        Heeby jeebies

        Firstly the models are continually being improved and are projections of certain scenarios. When factors not predicatble by models are included, such as solar, volcanos and ENSO the results are virtually spot on.

        Which does not change one iota the mass of physics, measurements and empirical evidence that does lie behind and confirm AGW.

        What is wrong is all the shallow and non scientific arguments from the people who do not accept the science and basically every model ever put forward by a scientist who does not accept the science.

        By the way Griss the 12 hottet years on record in the last 13 is hardly cooling and would not be definitive anyway. You need to look at the decadal trends as year to year figures are weather anyway and decadelly the trend has kept up for 60+ years, despite the dips and pauses due to natural factors. Again unable to distinguish an underlying long term warming trend from natural factos and cycles. But then you ignore anything that does not fit your bias.

        Yes Greg lets look at the data over time. 100+ years of a definate warming trend in the temperature record that fits the science and matches the other empirical evidence of what would occur ina world warming with CO2. If you actually did that instead of fake shallow model arguments you would see that everything supports AGW.

        112

        • #
          Heywood

          WARNING: Activism alert!

          Any new rhetoric or the same tired cut and paste propaganda??

          61

          • #
            The Griss

            He truly is pathetic, is he not.

            Never one bit of science or one bit of knowledge, just rampant propaganda bulls**t.

            Quite hilarious..

            Other people read this and can see the moronic mentality of the rabid warmist and it really is doing irreparable damage to the warmist meme..

            So keep it up, bozo, you are helping us immensely :-)

            53

            • #
              The Griss

              And the panic and desperation in his pathetic propaganda parroting is really hilarious to watch.

              He knows he is getting absolutely no traction at all

              He knows everyone is just laughing at him.

              And he is getting wilder and wilder, inventing more and more fantasies…

              Most humourous indeed. :-)

              43

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          Work may be going on in an attempt to make GCM’s more in touch with reality, but then hope sprang eternal in the hearts of alchemists seeking the Philosopher’s Stone. There is still no such thing as a verifiable GCM after all these years, few of the models can hind-cast, let alone forecast. “12 Hottest years” means nothing when temperature rise has clearly plateaued. If you could demonstrate increasing temperature commensurate with increase in atmospheric CO2, folk might take notice. All you have to go on is the, Ocean ate the heat” hypothesis which doesn’t even answer the question of where the heat’s gone for the last 3.5 billion years. It’s good that reality is creeping into your rants re “dips and pauses”, even though the temperature record has been so mangled to comply with the CAGW theory that it is not easily apparent to the man in the street that temperatures are no hotter today than in the late 1930′s and certainly cooler than in the MWP and the RWP.

          Climastrologists are not listened to because much of their output is so obviously fabricated or fraudulent and has political objectives abhorrent to the bulk of humanity. One does not need a PhD in ecology to grasp the basics of ecological issues, just a knowledge of basic science and a common sense approach. Unless warmists stop treating scientific enquiry as a faith-based mythology reliant on complete belief in the pronouncements of gurus like Flannery. Gore and Jim Hansen and the bad science of Lew & Cookie, they will lose all traction with the common man.

          80

          • #
            Heeby jeebies

            If you could demonstrate increasing temperature commensurate with increase in atmospheric CO2, folk might take notice.

            Done: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2014/02/CO2_and_temperature_since_mid_19th_cen.gif

            Oh boy, where do I begin with such ignorance. It must be great to have such a simplistic view of the world and climate that you can believe that the climate starts and ends with atmospheric temperature. Those of us in the real world have to take into account many factors occurring at the same time. So basically your argument is valid if CO2 is the only influence on climate and the atmosphere is all of the climate system.

            So I can help you further please answer yes and no to the following…
            1. Do you understand that the sun is the main source of energy and this can go up or down (currently falling over the last 60 years)?
            2. Do you understand that there are natural cycles in the oceans, such as ENSO and PDO, which can take 30 years plus to filter through and that influence warming or cooling of the atmosphere?
            3. Do you understand that Volcanos have a cooling effect on the atmosphere and that there have been a lot of volcanic activity in the last couple of decades?
            4. Do you understand that the oceans cover roughly 70% of the earths surface and are very deep and can take and distribute the suns energy?
            5. Do you understand that glaciers and the arctic melting can take a lot of energy to accomplish?

            That should be enough for starters, please answer honestly so I can see where you need help. Obviously the oceans will need a lot of work because you think they ‘eat heat’ rather than be a sink and distributer of energy from the sun.

            19

            • #
              The Griss

              “Do you understand that the sun is the main source of energy and this can go up or down (currently falling over the last 60 years)?’

              That is BLATANT and ABSOLUTE LIE !!!!

              50

              • #
                The Griss

                The latter half of the 20th century had some of the strongest solar peaks in several thousand years.

                There scientific data shows that they possibly were even stronger than what occurred caused the Medieval warm period and Roman warm period yet we got nowhere near the nice productive warmth of those periods.

                50

              • #
                The Griss

                I could post several links to show this..

                but you don’t do science.. just rabid propaganda non-science.

                50

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                So you don’t believe the sun is the main source of enegy and can go up or down?

                04

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                Ok, prove that the sun has gone up in the last 60 years, otherwise apologise.

                04

              • #
                The Griss

                I have linked several times to several papers that show this.

                Go find them yourself.

                Do some of your own research instead of relying on your little CD of propaganda B***S***

                00

              • #
                The Griss

                I know it can go up and down.. Any chart of the sun’s activity will show you that.

                It was very down during the LIA, and very UP during the last part of the 20th century.

                The magnetic effects were also very high during the latter part of the 20th century

                It is now heading into a “down” with the resultant cooling starting to take effect.

                So why don’t YOU apologise for being a lying ignorant fool.

                00

              • #
                The Griss

                And another one.

                Gees all it takes a quick google search and there it is..

                Large peaks in solar activity through the whole of the second half of the 20th century.

                Yet, you, in your total and absolute IGNORANCE, continue to DENY this fact.

                10

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                “Solar activity affects the climate but seems to plays only a minor role in the current global warming. For example the Earth’s temperature has risen perceptibly in the last 40 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time [2] and [3]. The average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest a possible return to Maunder Minimum conditions within the next 50 coming years [4].”
                http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123212001002

                “Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.”
                http://www.mpg.de/496690/pressRelease20040802

                03

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                “We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.”
                http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html

                03

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                Oh I am sorry, I can only compete with actual peer reviewed science, what was I thinking. I should have just used google and some wikimedia images, apparently that is all the proof I need here. Science by eyeball graph and how about an opinion blog or 2?

                03

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                and since you like graphs, plenty on this page, see if you can work out what they mean…
                http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

                03

              • #
                The Griss

                So , you didn’t look at the actual data, just the opinions of the paid flunkies, Who even admit that the solar cycles were high during the latter pasrt of the century and have now dropped off to very low values. And anyone that thinks “solar brightness” (seriously?) is the only solar variable is even more of a goose than you are.

                Strong solar doesn’t warm, but they want to use weak solar as a cooling event. What a cop-out.!

                And “Nature” a scientific magazine.. Once maybe, but now its just a warmist propaganda rag.

                suggest a possible return to Maunder Minimum conditions within the next 50 coming years [4].”
                Thank you. See what a bit of research does. didn’t even take you very long. Keep trying. :-)

                20

              • #
                The Griss

                “see if you can work out what they mean…”

                Simple, its charts of the climb down from the Grand solar maximum and the two previous large peaks.

                Is that what you are trying to show, that cycles are declining.. we know that.. the start of the great cooling after the great warming.

                That is why the temperature hasn’t moved for 17 or so years, and that is why we are heading into a cooling period..

                10

              • #
              • #
                The Griss

                And another one.

                Gees, no mid/2nd half solar activity there..

                roflmao !!

                You truly are a wilfully blind little child HJ, if you can’t see that series of solar peaks.

                Hands on your eyes, fingers in ears, but unfortunately not hand over mouth.

                going “la, la, la la la.. the lah , la la..” etc…

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                “Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.”
                http://www.mpg.de/496690/pressRelease20040802

                Temperatures risen “Dramatically” OOOh ouch I’m burning from a propagandist expression.

                Solar “brightness”? Is that the only energy we receive from the sun?

                I know it would be nice if HJ received some brightness.

                00

              • #

                Mark D, you also needed to quote

                Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms

                So the citation the HJ gave us backs up Griss. The rate of temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century was the same as the second half but, according to the citation HJ gave us, the Sun is in a phase of unusually activity in the second half. Somehow, even with these authors in Climate Change research, we have people concluding that the first hot spell was natural but the latest one is CO2 induced.

                Idiotic beyond belief.

                20

              • #
                The Griss

                Yes Vic, was nice of HJ to provide a link backing up all I was saying. Thanks HJ :-)

                The lack of understand is strong with this one. Duuuurrrr !

                10

              • #
                Mark D.

                Fair enough Vic,

                AND we all could have quoted this from the concluding remarks:

                The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900,…..

                As is required these days they go on to tow the line on CO2 but that sentence is rather unequivocal IS SEEN INCREASINGLY AS ONE CAUSE.

                Thanks to Heeby Cheesewiz for the own goal, although it’s not the first time he has posted contradictory arguments.

                20

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                Firstly Griss, all your graphs confirm what i said. Over the last 60 years solar has been falling during the time of greatest warming. Secondly, you should probably stop rolling on the floor and do some of your own research. Posting ad nauseum graphics found by searching on google is not analysis, and making decisions on graphs alone and gnoring the conclusions of the many articles of peer reviewed research on the subject, is not science. It is called misinterpreting other scientists science to fit your confirmation bias. Basically every graph you have posted confirms what I have said.

                Can you provide actual peer reveiwed analysis that concludes what you claim and supports your meagre opinion.

                Mark D, the warming is dramatic in a global and historic context. Globally small changes make huge differences as can be seen by the mere fact that 6 degrees is what seperates an ice age from an interglacial. Basically you have just shown how ignorant you are of the global climate.

                03

              • #
                The Griss

                You seriously are totally and absolutely delusional !!

                10

            • #
              Kevin Lohse

              Oh Boy! where do I begin with such ignorance, not to mention a debilitating failure to be able to read and comprehend an argument with any accuracy. I didn’t mention atmospheric temperature at all, so that’s one straw man in the first 2 lines.
              1. ” currently falling over the last 60 years.” Absolutely, completely and utterly WRONG. I won’t call you a liar, as you’ve amply demonstrated across several threads that you don’t have the maturity know the difference between truth and falsehood.
              2. Do you understand that there are natural cycles that take centuries or millennia to cycle, not filter, through? That’s why they are called cycles, not filters The Minoan MP, the RMP, the MWP and the Modern WP are each 1000 years apart.
              3. Do you understand that the forcing from volcanoes is not fully understood, and that volcanic activity has in fact been relatively quiet for the last 20 years?
              4. Do you understand that the oceans have been acting in this way for epochs and not for the last 50 years only?
              5. Do you understand that polar ice accretion is at an all-time measured high both in area and in thickness? and that glaciers in the Himalayas and the European lps are beginning to grow once more?

              80

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                That’s European Alps.

                6. do you understand that you are the victim of a deliberate plot by elements of the the Green movement to dumb down science and establish a cargo cult of believers who will accept anything, however bizarre from Gurus of the Green movement?

                If by any faint chance a smidgeon of honest scepticism has broken through your previously impervious immaturity, overweening arrogance and cargo-cult piety, I will be glad to help your in your development as a rational human being.

                80

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                Oh poor Kevin, that word I cannot mention as applying to people who don’t accpet the science fits you perfectly. I notice that you could not answer one of my questions. I notice that in a lot of your responses you have ignored recent science that contradicts you, such as that about volcanos.

                and the cherry on top of proof of your ignorance of the science?

                do you understand that you are the victim of a deliberate plot by elements of the the Green movement to dumb down science and establish a cargo cult of believers who will accept anything, however bizarre from Gurus of the Green movement?

                Oh how childish, I only put forward accepted science by every internationally recognised scientific organisation on the planet. The greens are all powerful if they have taken control of that many people, on every continent, under every form of government and been able to manipulate all of the science and the data globally. Wow.

                Seriously I don’t understand how adults can actually be so gullible, and obvioulsy common sense and reason is not going to have an effect on you.

                05

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                “Seriously I don’t understand how adults can actually be so gullible, and obvioulsy (sic) common sense and reason is not going to have an effect on you.”

                Classic case of projection.

                The whistleblower who instigated Climategate gave the world proof that a small group of influential activists/scientists were manipulating, falsifying and fraudulently creating data to fit a political narrative. Furthermore, that claque was using their influence to distort the work of scientists who had different views by blackmailing and otherwise pressuring editors into suppressing contrary views. Why should anybody take seriously the work of so-called scientists who hide the basic data their papers depend upon so that only favoured cronies who can be relied upon to produce favourable results can replicate the experiments? Why should an adult, reasonable person believe in the honesty of a group that thought that turning off the air conditioning in a senate hearing on a hot July day was a good way of making their point? Those are the roots of your, “accepted science”.

                . You also have no difficulty in ignoring the hundreds thousands of peer-reviewed science papers that question or belie warmist dogma. Your refusal to consider the words of the world’s leading ecologist on the matter of the hi-jacking of scientific endeavour by extremists who are anti science, anti-capitalist and anti-human gives the lie to your repeated protestations of intellectual rigour, as does your rejection of the findings of AR5 in that the models have got it wrong, wrong, wrong. In any other scientific field, a 17+year failure to successfully predict a phenomenon would be considered as a failure of the hypothesis. Only in the la-la land of the warmist cult is blind faith a positive value in scientific enquiry. All your bloviation, in this and other threads, does is to mark you as a useful idiot in the thrall of those who would enslave the world if they could. Your.” Science” is a whited sepulchre hiding the decomposing body of a malevolent movement.

                30

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                Kevin again making stuff up.
                Firslty climategate was a beat up by people who do not accept the science. No less than seven inquiries, sone by all sides, have concluded nothing wrong was done. They were emails and comments taken out of context and reordered to produce a false impression. So again you ignore the actual proven truth to stick with what was diproven years ago.

                Secondly please provide your ‘thousands of peer reviewd science that belies or qeustions the science. Every peer reviewed survey done of the science (and there have been many) have proven that less than 3% cast any doubt on the science and not one have proved it wrong.

                Thirdly you prove again and repeatedly how much you do not accept science by your inability to accept the data and science from 95% of the climate system while you only take into account the 5% of the climate system that you can misinterpret to fit your bias. Very sad really.

                I should also add to the power of the all powerful greens the ability to control the climate, they can apparently make the Arctic melt at will, and cause increasing droughts, heat waves and extreme recipitation events. That is off course added to their ability to control all the data, measurements, science, scientists and science organisations globally on every continent and every form of government. Amazing the power they have. When you grow up come back and have a real discussion.

                03

              • #
                Heywood

                “Amazing the power they have”

                Amazing the obsession you have. You really should seek help, for the sake of your children.

                ” Very sad really.”

                No, what is very sad is the fact that after many months of whinging about the sake of your family on this blog, you are here posting rather than spending time with them. Geez your missus must be gasping for some attention.

                The fact that you had to deceive Jo and the mods to persist in your little crusade her just shows that you are merley an obsessed leftard activist.

                00

          • #
            Heeby jeebies

            which doesn’t even answer the question of where the heat’s gone for the last 3.5 billion years. I

            This is so ignorant I don’t think it is able to be tackled here. You need to go and do some research. The planet is 4 billion years old and started as a flaming ball of dust without an atmosphere, your comment displays a complete lack of recognition of the evolution of a planet and the development of an atmosphere.

            Also please prove with a scientifically accepted and credible global data set to back up your opinion that the 30′s were the same temperature and some peer reviewed evidence that it is cooler than the MWP. This does not concur with any global data set that I have seen, and the long term data does not match the vast majority of proxy sets and the vast majority of the peer reviwed science. You should not be allowed to make stuff up.

            The faith is shown all through this blog as you argue mainly that the intelligent media is not listening to you, and you make up stuff to hide that you have no science.

            111

            • #
              The Griss

              “You should not be allowed to make stuff up.”

              Like Mann did.

              Not long now until he gets to show us all his fraudulent statistics.

              Again, it is pointless posting any links to real data, because you have shown over and over and over again that…

              a) you would totally ignore it, and b) you wouldn’t understand it even if you did bother looking at it.

              So keep blustering your worthless propaganda driven crap. You are getting no traction here.

              We are all laughing at your idiocy, ineptitude and lack of intelligence.

              60

            • #

              This is so ignorant I don’t think it is able to be tackled here. You need to go and do some research. The planet is 4 billion years old and started as a flaming ball of dust without an atmosphere, your comment displays a complete lack of recognition of the evolution of a planet and the development of an atmosphere.

              This is your reply to Kevin Loshe when he points out that the heat has been lost to space like it always has rather than it is hiding in the oceans? You need to answer the scientific question

              If you could demonstrate increasing temperature commensurate with increase in atmospheric CO2, folk might take notice. All you have to go on is the, Ocean ate the heat”

              50

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                Actually the question was answered above, maybe you should look first before you comment incorrectly.

                Secondly, if all the heat is lost immdeiately to space we would be the moon, clearly we are not the moon with its large extremes of heat and cold due to its lack of atmosphere. So you do not understand that the ocean occupies 70% of the earths surface and so is a recipient of energy from the sun everyday?

                05

              • #

                The question was answered above?

                This is so ignorant I don’t think it is able to be tackled here. You need to go and do some research. The planet is 4 billion years old and started as a flaming ball of dust without an atmosphere, your comment displays a complete lack of recognition of the evolution of a planet and the development of an atmosphere.

                You’re ignorant of what you wrote 30 hours earlier and only a couple of up moves of the scroll wheel away. Too much to ask you to appreciate that 3 m of ocean depth has the same heat capacity as the atmosphere?

                Heebee, do you have any scientific training at all? Cut and pasting Wikipedia is not good enough to fake it.

                00

              • #
                The Griss

                Vic, he is almost totally scientifically illiterate, as is obvious from all his postings.

                He is the “Sergeant Schultz” of AGW.

                00

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                So Vic, you ignore my answer? Typical action of somebody that continuously ignore any science that does not fit your bias.

                “Done: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2014/02/CO2_and_temperature_since_mid_19th_cen.gif

                Oh boy, where do I begin with such ignorance. It must be great to have such a simplistic view of the world and climate that you can believe that the climate starts and ends with atmospheric temperature. Those of us in the real world have to take into account many factors occurring at the same time. So basically your argument is valid if CO2 is the only influence on climate and the atmosphere is all of the climate system.”

                03

              • #
                Heeby jeebies

                Vic, he is almost totally scientifically illiterate, as is obvious from all his postings.

                As with everything you say that is not consistent with the evidence. I provide views that I back up with actual peer reviewed science. You spend all your time rolling on the floor and posting graphs you find on google searches and call that research and science. lol.

                03

              • #

                You just posted a graph you googled without any understanding of it. It finishes at 2008 and is smoothed so that the recent cessation of warming is not noticeable. The two colour choices are so close that any amateur would not pick up that the pre 1960 is an estimate from a the ice cores of Antartcia that is not consistent with actual measurements of CO2 from pre 1960.

                The plot needs to be compared with a cumulative plot of human generated CO2. With the 10 times increase in generation in recent times than in 1940, the correlation with temperature is so poor that even a log plot would not save it.

                You have just highlighted your scientific illiteracy, HJ.

                00

        • #
          The Griss

          “12 hottet years on record in the last 13″

          When you stand on a phone book, you are higher than when you stand on the floor… so f******g what !!! clown.

          50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          It has never occurred to Michael, that several people involved in this site are, or have previously been, computer modellers, and know the sorts of things that go on, from the inside.

          Nave you ever worked on a computer model, Michael? Do you have any clue, what you are talking about?

          No? I thought not.

          100

    • #

      Oh boy, are you ever going to have an actual science argument?

      This is a blog full of science arguments written by scientists with qualifications (PhD even) and awards. You know this. You’re a lying troll.

      100

      • #
        Heeby jeebies

        Every time I check on the latest blog post I see nonsense like this. The actual science must be very few and far between the non science arguments.

        013

        • #
          Heywood

          Then stop checking. You wont be missed.

          61

        • #
          The Griss

          We know there is no science is your post, never has been , never will be..

          You are just way to stupid to realise your own total ignorance.

          41

        • #
          Heeby jeebies

          The science is clear and well accepted by the vast majority of scientists and all international scientific organisations. You would not understand real science as you are never exposed to it here. You are more worried about conspiracy theories, whether the media are listening to your religious beliefs and whether your latest non scientific argment is getting traction among the non scientific masses. It is all about delay for your fossil fuel puppet masters to make more profits. One day you will learn to think for yourselves.

          111

          • #
            MaxL

            Yes Heeby jeebies or MTR or whoever you are,
            It is everyone else. It is we who are mistaken, ignorant, evil, misled, intent on destroying the world in a blaze of hellfire and damnation, and it is only you that devotes his time and effort to enlighten the rest of us to follow in your glorious example.
            I just can’t understand how I was misled by their misuse of logic, mathematics and science to deceive, for the mere fiduciary benefits, like the millions that Jo receives from Gina and that I, yes, I finally admit, I received $2 billion from BP and Shell only last week.
            It is true, I had to keep my identity a secret for these many years because I knew the Australian Taxation Office would eventually catch up with me. Yes, my mattress currently contains $5.89 billion.

            The ATO know where I live, I expect to be arrested very shortly.
            Before I go, thank you Heeby J, without your help I’d never have confessed. I hope now I will be redeemed in your eyes, please forgive me, I should have listened only to you.

            80

          • #
            MaxL

            Hail to Heeby J!
            The only one who understands “THE” science.
            Oh, that I could embrace his hand. Oh, that I could touch his forehead. A giant among men.
            Why do we, who are so inferior, doubt this wonder of the century? Never before in the history of man has there been such a saviour!!

            70

          • #
            Mark D.

            The science is clear and well accepted by the vast majority of scientists and all international scientific organisations.

            You mean those international organizations receiving monies from a political organization like the UN?

            You would not understand real science as you are never exposed to it here. You are more worried about conspiracy theories, whether the media are listening to your religious beliefs and whether your latest non scientific argment is getting traction among the non scientific masses.

            Well I don’t agree with you but I suppose this would be the normal reaction when science is corrupted by politics and politicians are using science to further their political aspirations.

            It is all about delay for your fossil fuel puppet masters to make more profits. One day you will learn to think for yourselves.

            Now again you have your own conspiracy theory. Funny, and we keep pointing this out to you! You are projecting.

            You keep throwing out “profit” as though it is an evil. I’d like you to explain why you think profit is a bad thing.

            00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            But the data is not. I am sure you love breathing your phlogiston. The rest of us breathe air.

            00

        • #
          Angry

          So tell us all “Heeby jeebies” what are your educational qualifications so that we can all see what a mighty intellect we are dealing with……..

          20

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Pretty much describes your posts.

          00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      HJ:
      I wasted 2 hours on Friday listening to 2 activists campaign for a solar heat power station at Port Augusta in South Australia.

      Their justification was a chart from the IPCC (2000 vintage) showing the hockey stick. That this was so thoroughly discredited that the IPCC had to drop all mention of it since 2005 hadn’t registered on their consciousness. They were just as ignorant as you, but more polite, about global climate.

      There followed a very brief bit about solar heat and how wonderful it was. It will surprise all except you that everything was going wonderfully in Spain. No mention of the TOTAL stop on building new solar power of any source. There was a deal of glossing over the running details, though to be fair I think that was just due to pure ignorance. **

      The vast majority of the course ran on and on about how to get money to build it. They had realised that no company was ever going to put money into the project without a guarantee of huge subsidies and it was all about pressuring gullible politicians until one decided to spend other people’s money on their fantasy. They carried on about that so long that the question period wasn’t held as the room had to be cleared.

      ** Tony, the following should cause you some merriment. Try not to have apoplexy.
      1. They thought that the first (of 6) solar tower units at 50 MW could drive the old turbine from the 500MW Northern station.
      2. With heat stored in molten salt , they could either supply base load or turn the turbine on and off supplying peak load.
      3. They could rely on the molten salt to store surplus wind power, which is currently being dumped after wind has supplied ALL of SA’s needs..
      4. SA needs a second connector so the State can export all the surplus electricity left over.
      5. Cheap wind electricity will then threaten the Victorian brown coal industry.

      150

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Were these two escapees from Glenside?

        50

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          No. One was from Melbourne, the other from Adelaide.

          Sorry, but I didn’t bother with the details; just classified them as miscellaneous fools.

          Their approach was that “The Government” had lots of money somewhere, and all they had to do was find out where, and then recruit enough gullible sheep to make it seem if there was a public demand. They’d more of less given up on State Labor realising they’d be gone after this weeks election (and hadn’t left any money), but seemed to be trying to get an agreement from ARENA and some other Federal Agency (C???) left over from Rudd/Gillard before the Senate changes in July.

          I feel sorry for the citizens of Port August facing the economic consequences of their major employer (the coal power station) closing and falling for these snake oil merchants, but in the absence of any accurate facts they are easily led astray.

          10

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Ah! The Magic Money Tree fallacy, reinforced by the apparent success of Quantitive Easing, known in medieval times as milling or clipping. In 13th Century England, specie was returned to the Royal Mint at Abington and edges of the coins were milled. New coins were produced from the millings. There was some private enterprise in this activity, but if discovered, the punishment was long, drawn out, exceedingly painful and terminal. As a result, deals in specie were conducted by weighing the coins rather than accepting face value. In this modern age, QE devaluation is controlled by the markets, which is why everything is always getting more expensive in the shops.

            40

      • #

        Thanks Graeme No.3, merriment indeed. Oh, how I laughed at these:

        ** Tony, the following should cause you some merriment. Try not to have apoplexy.
        1. They thought that the first (of 6) solar tower units at 50 MW could drive the old turbine from the 500MW Northern station.
        2. With heat stored in molten salt , they could either supply base load or turn the turbine on and off supplying peak load.
        3. They could rely on the molten salt to store surplus wind power, which is currently being dumped after wind has supplied ALL of SA’s needs..
        4. SA needs a second connector so the State can export all the surplus electricity left over.
        5. Cheap wind electricity will then threaten the Victorian brown coal industry.

        Each of the 5 points is wrong.

        1. See the earlier Comment here at this site at this link, as to why a turbine designed to drive a 50MW generator cannot EVER drive a 500MW generator.

        2. The best heat diversion they have so far, which actually can drive a 50MW turbine/generator unit still can only operate at an average yearly Capacity Factor of 37%, which equates to just under 8.9 hours of power, so the thought it can supply a Base Load requirement is laughable in the extreme. Even in mid Summer, they can barely manage 12 hours of power with heat diversion, so for that yearly average to be down at 8.9 hours, then you guess how much power is generated in Winter. As to supplying Peak load, then that again is incorrect, as the two main Peaks are between 6AM and 9AM, long before this type of plant can make enough heat to boil water to steam to drive the turbine. The evening peak between 4PM and 10PM, so maybe this plant could supply part of that, but hey, it’s only 50MW. Who cares? To cover any peak like this, you’ll need not one unit, not the hoped for six units, but hundreds of them, and that would only service that evening peak during the hot Months, so for 7 or 8 Months of the year, this plant will be idle during both peaks.

        3. Huh! The reflected heat from the mirrors is used to make the compound or salts molten, not electricity. How do they propose to store, umm, excess wind power in those molten salts. Wind has supplied how much of SA’s power? ALL of it. Give me strength.

        4. The connector which SA currently has spends more time IMPORTING power from Victoria that it does exporting any excess wind power.

        5. CHEAP wind electricity. Again, give me strength. Victoria’s cheap brown coal power is what is actually keeping SA from brownouts and blackouts.

        For the life of me, I cannot understand how these people talk amongst themselves about this with such serious demeanor. I can see the moderating radio announcer nodding his head in agreement.

        What an absolute joke.

        Tony.

        80

        • #
          The Griss

          “drive a 50MW generator cannot EVER drive a 500MW generator”

          A bit like putting a 1.2 litre petrol engine in an fully loaded 18 wheel semi. ! :-)

          20

        • #
          The Griss

          Someone needs to turn off the feed from Victoria.. and let the SA people wallow in their abundant power.

          How long until they woke up to reality, I wonder. :-)

          30

      • #

        Umm, reply in Moderation, innocuous enough really.

        Tony.

        10

    • #
      James Bradley

      HJ, care to calculate the resources required to close down world-wide AGW debate? This site and others funded by donations from reasonable people are merely exposing fraud to light.

      40

    • #
      James Bradley

      HJ, your writing now has a hint of desperation.

      50

    • #
      TdeF

      This is very poor trolling. Just rambling, rolling out the standard waffling catch phrases as if they were the psalms. The Kevin Rude was good though, primitive, inappropriate, wrong but entertaining. 1/10 for trolling.

      30

    • #
      Michael P

      The statement “

      AGW is strong accepted science by 97% of practising and publishing climate scientists, 100% of internationally accepted scientific organisations and less than 3% of the science cast any doubt on it.

      is a outright lie and cannot be proved,unless you can provide a list of names of the climate scientists in question,there qualifications so it can be checked,or are we supposed to take your word as the truth because I’ve heard this before. I’d also like to know where you are getting these figures from,or do you just make them up as we go along? Also saying “

      You have no science and your arguments are all shallow and illogical.

      Have you looked in a mirror on your own argument recently?

      41

    • #
      Sonny

      Heeby Jeebies,

      Is your above comment a parody? I have written very similar things in the past to have a bit of fun at the expense of group think idiots who have done their 2 hours research on “skeptical science” and then come hear to brain dump every propoganda sound bite they’ve “learned” as if it is news to Jo and us commenters, and as if the bulk of the articles here have not thoroughly torn to shreds the credibility and accuracy of every one of these sound bites.

      If it’s not a parody and you genuinely believe what you have just written I truly pity you for your gullibility.

      Try using your brain, then come back with something original.

      70

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      Yes Michael P, you have argued that before and been wrong before. The figure comes from for surveys I am aware of including the Doran one and the Anderson one. A properly run peer reviewed statistical survey can determine the acceptance of many. Surveys in elections with votes by millions of people are surprisingly accurate with only around 1000 survey respondents. It is not necessary to poll every voter in a properly run survey. You cannot accept the truth? that is your problem,not mine. So stop calling it an ‘outright lie’, that is an outright lie. You have been told this many times.

      There is no science above, it is all trying to force the media to give fake balance betweeen the science and your religion.

      Sonny there is the science, and there is what you believe in.

      012

      • #

        Polls only months out of the election suggested an easy win for Labor and you saw what happened. Then again, maybe you didn’t. Labor was trounced.

        40

        • #
          Heeby jeebies

          Rubbish, polls for a long time had labor being trounced and on the night they were pretty much spot on what they predicted. You should stop continually making stuff up. The only change was a temporary swing to labor once they changed to Rudd, but that was well on its way back before the election and they were never put in a winning position.

          Please prove your statement, you really should be called to account.

          07

          • #

            Two polls in August had the two-party preferred at 50/50, a couple of months after Rudd came back as PM. The other polls showing the coalition ahead at 54% were not the majority and none predicted the 54.5% that occurred, or above.

            Six earlier polls after Rudd came back had the TPP to the ALP as high as 52.5%. All this highlights how much a single poll could be off.

            Your the one making stuff up. Please apologise.

            30

            • #

              Oops. Coalition got 53.5%. Still the point remains. Two weeks before, Essential predicted a 50/50 contest, clearly showing such polls can be off by a long way.

              20

      • #
        The Griss

        Liberals .. 90 seats

        Labor .. 55 seats

        Greens 1 seat .. roflmao !!

        51

        • #
          Heeby jeebies

          and what percentage were the polls saying the libs would win by and what percentage did they win by. That was the point, so again rolling on the floor like a flailing fish while missing the whole point of the question. You really should get some help.

          08

        • #
          The Griss

          I repeat….

          Liberals .. 90 seats

          Labor .. 55 seats

          Greens 1 seat .. roflmao !!

          Get over it , bozo. :-)

          30

      • #
        The Griss

        And if you seriously think Doran , or Cook are capable of running a decent survey.. you seriously have rocks where your brain should be.

        But that is obvious to anyone reading this blog.

        You are doing the warmist meme a whole lot of damage because passers-by will notice you chucking your tantrums, like the sulky little child that you are.

        50

      • #
        Michael P

        I suggest you do some reading before you post as the Doran Survey is deeply flawed.

        The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

        The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

        The survey was a 2 minute online survey. The second and key question was “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

        About 1 in 3 of the 10,000 odd Earth Scientists bothered to do the survey. Of them 82% answered yes to question 2. By dropping out anyone who published more than half their papers in any other field than strict “climate science” the 3000 odd replies was whittled down to just 77. Only 2 of those didn’t say “yes”, so the 97% figure was born: 75 out of 77.

        How many of those 75 depend on government grants that would be smaller or non-existent if there was no big fear of CO2 emissions? Who knows? And before anyone yells “ad hominem” at me for even asking, figure that we’re discussing a fallacy in the first place. Their opinions are just opinions, not evidence, and whether or not those opinions are influenced by money and fame is just another reason why we ought not hold opinions higher than empirical evidence.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/

        00

        • #
          Heeby jeebies

          I read the actual survey rather than an opinion blog telling me what to think. It is clear you have not read the actual survey.

          “”82% of 3146 Earth Scientists responding to a survey agreed that man is contributing to warming. As their specialty in climate science increased so did their belief in mans contribution to warming to a whopping 97% for the most active climate scientists.”"

          3146 successfu respondents with expertise in Earth Science is a significant amount, as mentioned before a survey of 1000 can accurately predict the outcome of an election of millions. After that when they drill down into their qualifications they find that the more active and published they become in climate science the higher the acceptance of the science. YOu also ignored the Anderegg survey, but you will similarly now serch for an opinion blogger to tell you what to think of that one.

          “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

          Feel free to publish any peer reviewed survey of climate scientists that comes to a different conclusion.

          02

          • #
            The Griss

            And yet another pointless post.

            [snip] ED

            00

          • #
            The Griss

            And nobody here is telling you what to think.. what a pointless exercise that would be. !!

            We just are not in the slightest bit interested in what you do actually think, if you ever do.

            [Snip. Blogs and blogging benefit from eliciting polite comments even when they demonstrate degrees of sanity. Be more polite.] ED

            00

          • #
            Michael P

            How is 1,372 climate researchers 97% when I can provide a list of 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
            including 9,029 with PhDs that have signed a letter saying that there is no evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,methane,or any other greenhouse gas will now or in the future,cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. I ignored the Anderegg survey as you called it the Anderson survey,so maybe you could get your facts right next time? Also in regard to the Doran survey your claim that

            82% of 3146 Earth Scientists responding to a survey agreed that man is contributing to warming. As their specialty in climate science increased so did their belief in mans contribution to warming to a whopping 97% for the most active climate scientists.”” i

            is a blatant lie,and about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
            Why should there opinion be taken as valid,when they don’t know what they are taking about?

            Also The original number contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part
            of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is
            set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted
            who agreed with their loaded question,from http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf,as the original survey refers to at http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf and I’ll post it below for you.

            In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate
            change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
            also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
            subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
            (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

            00

            • #
              Heywood

              With a wave of his arrogant little fist, he’ll just sweep your comments aside because your response doesn’t meet his rolled gold standard (ie. conflicts with his beliefs.)

              Every dribbling comment he makes inspires me to resist any mitigation strategies he advocates even more. Maybe I’ll even leave the lights on at work in honour of his dribbling. I work at an airport so the airfield lights wouldn’t contribute much CO2 would it? Not as much as an aircraft whisking the arrogant tosser and his family around Europe I expect.

              00

          • #
            Heywood

            Bwahahaha. Your activist streak is really showing. Your anger only makes me laugh.

            “Feel free to publish any peer reviewed survey of climate scientists that comes to a different conclusion.”

            Why do you need a climate scientist to conduct a survey? To ensure your pet bias is introduced?

            Ok then. Can’t wait to hear your excuse why you are going to ignore this one. I am sure it will be a standard sooky response.

            The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

            Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.”

            Legates, D. R., Soon, W., & Briggs, W. M. (2013). Learning and teaching climate science: The perils of consensus knowledge using agnotology. Science & Education, 22, 2007–2017.

            10

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            You could not have read the survey if you continue to repeat it. Stop lying.

            Doran is no more an accurate survey than it is science. If you cannot understand that, I suggest you take a course in basic science.

            00

    • #
      James Bradley

      HJ,

      And again…

      “The old false rich scientists and government grant argument, how pathetic. Science is a competitive field, you don’t get ahead unless you come up with something new and science journals don’t sell without real science content.”

      Science journals are a cash based business in a competitive market and disaster sells so unscrupulous writers sell it.

      30

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      I am wondering about the same thing with your posts [HJ]. So far, hysteria 100, science 0.

      [added for clarity] ED

      00

  • #
    pat

    note what i guess was the original headline in the url – “the twisted minds of climate deniers” etc:

    6 Mar: Salon.com: Lindsay Abrams: Climate buffoons’ real motives: 5 reasons they still spout debunked garbage
    From greed to idiocy, here’s the true agenda of deniers who still claim climate change isn’t happening
    ***Theory 1: They don’t understand science…
    Theory 5: They just don’t want to believe it
    All that really matters now, of course, is what we can do to, if not convert the deniers, then at least push them back into the ***margins where they belong…
    http://www.salon..com/2014/03/06/the_twisted_minds_of_climate_deniers_5_theories_for_why_they_still_refuse_to_see_reason/

    check Lindsay’s resume to see how qualified she is to understand climate science:

    Resume: Lindsay Abrams, Editor at Salon
    http://lindsay-abrams.tumblr.com/resume

    check some of Lindsay’s previous work:

    The Atlantic: Lindsay Abrams
    Lindsay Abrams is an assistant editor at Salon and a former writer and producer for The Atlantic’s Health Channel.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/lindsay-abrams/

    21

    • #
      PeterK

      “check Lindsay’s resume to see how qualified she is to understand climate science:”

      I hate to say it but with some people today, the more so called educated they become the more they are unable to reason, to understand and to apply common sense. I just cannot believe how some people who graduate enter the world at large and become the ‘educated dummies.”

      Is this a genetic flaw of some humans?

      50

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        The difference between well qualified and educated escapes so many people, especially those on the Left.

        20

      • #
        The Griss

        I notice she mentions “Microsoft Office”

        Bet that’s just “Wurd” and PowerPoint, and she’s in the Phil Jones stable when it comes to Excel or Access.

        Another scientifically illiterate pushy Arts/Lit menace thinking she has something meaningful to say in a subject she knows absolutely nothing about.

        HJ would worship her as a kindred lack of scientific intelligence.

        20

  • #
    pat

    noticed something is wrong with the url for Abrams’ piece of work – it is:

    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/06/the_twisted_minds_of_climate_deniers_5_theories_for_why_they_still_refuse_to_see_reason/

    btw there are nearly 760 comments – almost all framed as a left/right fight.

    10

  • #
    pat

    Abrams shows up all over the left blogosphere:

    2 pages: 15 Feb: Alternet: Lindsay Abrams: The Ultimate Guide to Shutting Down Climate Trolls
    Next time someone tells you that snowy weather means global warming isn’t real, you’ll know exactly how to respond.
    The zingers -
    – SkepticalScience, a reliable font of detailed information, also breaks it down into this one-sentence explanation:
    “A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.”…
    The Videos
    Chris Hayes, an ironic sparkle in his eyes, asks climate scientist Michael Mann how it’s possible for snow and global warming to be happening at the same time. His reply: “Well, we climate scientists actually have a technical term for this phenomenon. It’s called winter” (you can file that one away with the other zingers)
    (MORE VIDEOS ON PAGE 2)
    http://www.alternet.org/environment/ultimate-guide-shutting-down-climate-trolls

    CAGW lovefest in the comments.

    00

  • #
    pat

    Abrams’ latest. the headline immediately reeked of abc darling de Botton & a bunch of others preparing us psychologically for austerity. doubt if Abrams or Wallman intend to go without:

    8 Mar: Salon.com: Lindsay Abrams: Buy less, do more: 5 reasons why experiences make us happier than things
    British trend forecaster James Wallman has coined a new word: “Stuffocation.” …
    WALLMAN: What’s new is the way I’ve bagged up these problems together. So some people say, just hold on a second, it just sounds like “affluenza” or “status anxiety” 2.0. “Status Anxiety,” by Alain de Botton…
    ABRAMS: So there are a lot of things playing into this attitude, and you point out that concern for the environment could be one of them. Do you think that plays a prominent role in people moving away from materialism, or is it more of a secondary outcome?
    WALLMAN: It’s funny, because when I talk about stuffocation, I very rarely mention the environmental aspect. And it has a very small mention in the book. That’s partly because I feel it’s so obvious. But also, not only is it obvious, I think it’s one of those drivers of stuffocation — one of those things that fits into the bag of stuffocation — is that it’s all well and good for some people to be concerned about the environment, but there are a lot of people who a) aren’t bothered about the environment, and b) even if they are bothered about the environment they aren’t bothered enough to do something about it and stop consuming stuff…
    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/buy_less_do_more_5_reasons_why_experiences_make_us_happier_than_things/

    00

  • #
    pat

    bbc’s McGrath has just woken from a dream (or was it a dram?) to discover CAGW sceptics don’t deny climate/climate change/agw or even a bit of CAGW in some cases! usual loaded Beeb piece:

    7 Mar: BBC: Matt McGrath: Taking the war out of global warming
    I once had a dream (or was it a dram?) in which the things we thought we knew for certain about the world were suddenly turned upside down.
    In this strange universe, the cold war seemed to suddenly return, Ireland began to perform consistently at rugby, and arch-climate sceptics began to believe in dangerous levels of global warming.
    Imagine my surprise then, on reading this new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
    Here was one of the world’s foremost bastions of contrariness when it comes to man-made climate change, admitting that temperatures were actually rising in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
    And according to the study, the 2C threshold of dangerous warming would be crossed later on this century…
    Huh? What about all that stuff we’ve heard in the past from those who refused to accept the science? That the whole thing was a warmist conspiracy, driven by out-of-work ex-communists?
    Strangely, the GWPF are not highlighting this acknowledgement that man-made emissions are driving rapid changes in our climate, compared to the historical experience…
    So how has mainstream science reacted to a research paper that has not been peer reviewed, written by people who are not employed at mainstream scientific institutions, casting doubt on a central tenet of their work?…
    (responses from “mainstream”(?) Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University, Dr Ed Hawkins, from the University of Reading)
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26468564

    McGrath doesn’t get a response from CAGW sceptics or link to WUWT threads on the the topic.

    in WUWT comments, jauntycyclist says:

    “bbc website has a hys on this story but if u post the link to here (WUWT) it goes into ‘moderation’.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/06/more-reax-to-lewis-and-crok-what-the-ipcc-knew-but-didnt-tell-us/#more-104567

    00

  • #
    pat

    btw many of the comments on McGrath/BBC piece of work have been deleted. some of those may have been attempts to link to WUWT threads, i would imagine.

    across the Atlantic, NYT has one of those increasingly-prevalent ambiguous headlines, which lead the reader to believe it is giving a voice to CAGW scepics…BUT

    8 Mar: NYT: MARTIN P. HOERLING: Global Warming? Not Always
    BOULDER, Colo. — CALIFORNIA is now in the midst of the third year of one of its worst droughts on record. As our planet gradually warms from our rampant burning of fossil fuels, it’s only natural to wonder what role climate change has played in California’s troubles.
    The answer is this: At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human-induced climate change…
    Thus, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that human-induced climate change has played any appreciable role in the current California drought…

    ***BUT that is not to say that a warmer climate cannot and will not act to decrease soil moisture and amplify the severity of future naturally occurring droughts…
    Why should we care about what caused this drought, or for that matter, other extreme events like this winter’s severe cold over the Midwest or last year’s floods in Colorado? An accurate interpretation of the cause or causes can provide a preview of the future. It can help us understand whether the current experience is normal, or may instead foretell a new normal. The diagnosis is key to the prognosis…
    Both answers have critical implications for how we assess risk and develop strategies to mitigate future problems and dangers…
    This article is adapted from Andrew Revkin’s blog, Dot Earth.
    Martin P. Hoerling is a research meteorologist, specializing in climate dynamics, at the Earth System Research Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/global-warming-not-always.html?_r=0

    00

  • #
    pat

    Bob Inglis gets to push his agenda in the MSM, once again. nowhere can i find the identity of the Australian climate scientist he refers to here, and in some earlier pieces:

    8 Mar: Miami Herald: Bob Inglis: Climate change is a conservative cause — really
    During my first six years in Congress, I said there was no problem to be solved —that climate change was Al Gore’s imagination. I took a break from Congress for six years, practicing commercial real-estate law. When I was running for Congress again in 2004, my son had just turned 18 and was voting for the first time. He came to me and said, “I’ll vote for you, Dad, but you’re going to clean up your act on the environment.”
    Because I love my son, his four younger sisters and his Mom — all of whom agreed with him! — I started to look into the science.
    When I got back to Congress, I joined the Science Committee and went to Antarctica in 2006. I saw the ice core studies showing rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere.
    I learned that when we started to burn fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution, we started to change the chemistry of the air and oceans. I learned that sunlight comes through our blanket of greenhouse gases, but that radiant heat gets trapped. Some of that is a great thing. Were it not for that blanket, we wouldn’t be able to live on Earth.
    But the data indicate that we’re adding too many blankets, risking an uncomfortable sweat.
    Still, this was just data; it wasn’t enough to cause me to act. My heart wasn’t in it yet.
    ***That changed when I met an Australian climate scientist who humbly and quietly told me about conservation changes he’d made in his life in order to love God and love people — people we’ll never know because they’ll come long after us…
    (Bob Inglis directs the Energy and Enterprise Initiative based at George Mason University. He represented South Carolina’s Fourth District in Congress from 1993-1999 and from 2005-2011)
    http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/08/3981103/climate-change-is-a-conservative.html

    Feb 2013: Yale Environment 360: A Conservative Who Believes
    That Climate Change Is Real
    Republican Bob Inglis’ statement that he believed in human-caused climate change helped cost him his seat in Congress. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, Inglis explains why he is now trying to persuade his fellow conservatives that their principles can help save the planet.
    by roger cohn
    In an interview with Yale Environment 360 editor Roger Cohn, Inglis talked about his own evolution from being a climate change denier…
    ***e360: So the true cost would be put in through a carbon tax?
    Inglis: Yes, it’s a way of approximating that cost. I was at Harvard recently and Bill Hogan, an economist there, pointed out to me that the best way to do this is by attaching the actual cost to each emitter. Then you have the truest of true cost comparisons. I think that’s exactly the right answer…
    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/interview_bob_inglis_conservative_who_believes_climate_change_is_real/2615/

    PBS did a whole Frontline prog on Inglis:

    2012: PBS Frontline: Bob Inglis: Climate Change and the Republican Party
    Q: You are talking about you only know what you want to know. Who were some of the people? …
    INGLIS: It’s really, really disappointing that there are people out there that are selling themselves as experts who aren’t. … Lord [Christopher] Monckton, who is actually a journalist who holds forth on climate science, … people sadly on my side of the aisle have listened to him and presented him as an expert. …
    Q: Why do you think that is?
    INGLIS: Because I think he’s saying something that people want to hear. …
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/bob-inglis-climate-change-and-the-republican-party/

    10

  • #
    Bevan

    The same filtering is being applied by the ABC here to the upcoming Senate election rerun. The Greens Senate candidate has already been getting air time on the ABC news, sometimes it may a Labor candidate but rarely is it a Liberal or National Party Senate candidate.
    How much longer are we going to put up with this blatant bias by our supposed “national” broadcaster? It simply adds to the appalling bias that the ABC has applied to the climate issue over the last few years.

    30

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      Libs are avoiding the general media, they focus their time on the shows and journalists that won’t actually give them a hard time. Abbott particularly will avoid most hard hitting shows. They are acting like a dictatorship that can keep the public in the dark and do not need to explain their actions.

      The lack of libs on the ABC is due to libs not the ABC.

      114

      • #
        Heywood

        Trollin’ trollin’ trollin’
        Keep that whinging rollin’
        Gotta keep the bile goin’
        Leftaaaaard!

        (Ya all know the tune)

        120

      • #
        The Griss

        Liberals are getting on with the job.

        They have a lot of work to do to fix the monumental mess left by the Lab/Green farce.

        Why should they pander to the left wing media, they are not primadonnas like both the previous 3 pm’s.

        I know the likes of you cannot exist past the 3 second sound grab, but sorry, the adults are now back in charge.

        81

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          ” they are not primadonnas like both the previous 3 pm’s.”

          Calm down mate, it’s only a troll.

          70

          • #
            The Griss

            I am calm.. having a good chuckle actually.

            What I typed is correct. The previous 3 pm’s were 2 people.

            And trolls need to be exposed to the light, its good for them, and really drives their nonsense into overdrive.

            You give them rope and more rope and they keep hanging themselves. It funny to watch.

            60

      • #
        James Bradley

        HJ:

        You answer you own questions… again…

        “Libs are avoiding the general media, they focus their time on the shows and journalists that won’t actually give them a hard time.”

        Per previous, everyone knows “disaster sells”, obviously the current Australian Government is not a disaster.

        30

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      It is also nice to see an independent madia that can focus on the actual science and not be manipulated by some media mogul with his/her hand in the money jar.

      015

      • #

        You lie again. Do you never stop.

        You like surveys, well one was done on the number of CAGW stories and those of sceptical stories in News LTD papers. The alarmist articles won easily despite many articles by Andrew Bolt and articles from Bjorn Ljomborg considered to be sceptical.

        60

      • #
        James Bradley

        What resources are required to shut down debate, present only the minority belief and ignore the science – the ABC is the media mogul with its hands in the public purse.

        20

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        Madia is about right, Can’t argue with that.

        40

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        You are confusing an independent MEDIA, with an unbiased one. The article is about bias, not independence.

        00

  • #
    pat

    by their comments ye shall know them, i.e. the bias of the program makers, and the quality of the listeners!

    9 Mar: ABC RN Background Briefing: Jonathan Green: The Abbot Point gamble

    2 COMMENTS by Doomsday Chook:
    …Anthropogenic climate destabilisation Holocaust (and it will, quite possibly, kill 100 times as many as all the horrors of WW2)denialists are, I would say, by far the most dangerous zealots ever to afflict humanity. And as long as the Right totally dominates the planet, then we are on the road to near term extinction..

    Peter, the biggest denialists of all and the most morally gutless are all the polite, ‘liberal, ‘progressive’ bien-pensants who pretend to themselves that our sham, farcical, ‘democracy’ can cope with the increasingly deranged and omnicidal psychopathy of the Right. As the Abbott regime destroys every single environmental gain made in the last forty years, driven on by the visceral hatred that spews out of the Rightwing MSM towards Greens, because they threaten the Masters money and power, the ‘do-gooders’ sit impotently, like eunuchs wringing their hands in frustration, or like rats mesmerised by a poisonous snake. Being forced into the global equivalent of a gigantic genocidal gas-chamber, the destabilised atmosphere, with scarcely a whimper. Truly stupefying…
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-03-09/5300560

    no transcript and no intention of listening, but ABC sure looks like it has a bias:

    9 Mar: ABC RN Background Briefing: Jonathan Green: Speech goes viral
    WA Senator Scott Ludlam gave a speech to an almost empty Senate chamber late one Monday evening. While his live audience was small, the speech had a second life on social media and Youtube…
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/speech-goes-viral/5308512

    20

  • #
    pat

    oops, the abc’s scott ludlam thing is from “Sunday Extra”/Jonathan Green program, not Background Briefing.

    10

  • #
    john robertson

    When it comes to what passes for state media today, the most coherent comment I have heard to date, is Frank Zappa; “I Am the Slime”.
    Really covers those pathetic parasites who use our work to deliberately misinform us.
    And most of the politicians and advertising creatures who enable this abuse.

    40

  • #
    Slabadang

    Hi Joanne!

    Please check your email 2014 02 25 on the subject “biased”!

    Kind regards!

    02

  • #
    hunter

    The stated position of the US government is that skeptics are flat earthers and are terrorists in support of the most pressing issue on Earth today, ‘cliamte change’.
    In fact, the US strategy towards Russia regarding its invasion of the Ukraine is to deploy climate change strategies against Russia, like higher gasoline taxes and a carbon tax in the US.
    That’ll teach Mr. Putin!

    20

    • #
      TdeF

      Invasion of the Ukraine? Hardly. It is only 4% of the Ukraine, has its own parliament and government and has always operated as an autonomous state.

      Gifted in 1954 to the Ukraine by Kruschev against the wishes of the residents and most other Russians, it has been a simmering row for sixty years. Now the corrupt government in Kiev have been overthrown, most Crimeans have had enough and want to go home. The Crimean peninsula is almost an island bordering the sea of Azov and Russia.

      Where is the news on the corrupt Ukranian government directed use of machine guns by police on unarmed protesters in Kiev, killing at least 60 people? Why is there such a picture that Russia is invading the Ukraine and not that there is no government in the other 96% of the country. Russia does not want to annex the Crimea, the Crimean people want to go home. Anyone over 60 was in fact born in Russia. No one speaks Ukranian. Crimea was only Ukranian in name only and the sad fact is that there is no Ukraine at present and they have seized the opportunity to claim the right to go home at last. Their fear is not the action of the Russian government, but revenge by the distant Ukranian government, as in Kiev.

      The best thing for the people is to democratically decide whether the Crimean autonomous state should rejoin Russia. It was never part of the USSR, but Russian since before the Crimean war of 1854 and only technically part of the Ukraine since 1954. What is extremely puzzling is the animosity towards Russia and Putin in particular, painted as another Hitler or Stalin and the central Ukranian government as saints fighting tyranny.

      20

  • #
    hunter

    pat,
    This doomsday chook guy is a gift that keeps on giving! Thanks for the link.

    20

  • #
    chillguy33

    US government may soon begin a spending program to reward viewers and listeners of left-wing news sources. Of course it will be more or less disguised and multi-faceted. FCC has already designed this. GW (EPA) bucks have been planned; other spending is advocated by left-wingers (“journalists”) which is absolutely necessary to buy off RINO parasites as well as left-wing bundlers. The end justifies the means. We are in the fight of our lives; we just don’t know it yet.

    20

  • #
    TdeF

    What is surprising about the ABC and the media in general is the continuation of the lie that 97% of scientists support Climate Change logic. This is a blatant and outrageous lie, often repeated. I have never seen any public demolition of this fabrication in the media. No one just calls it out as rubbish?

    In this 97% claim, scientists are sometimes ‘climate scientists’, a special breed like our climate commissioners Flannery and Steffen and of course Al Gore, none of whom have any qualifications in meteorology. Clearly the black art of meteorology is unfathomable to nuclear physicists or any other scientists, an exclusive science on which only the initiated can offer an opinion. Ridicule is the weapon of choice.

    Then you have the definition of ‘Climate Change’ itself, which is meaningless. Last week we read that it is Rapid Man Made Global Warming. Climate usually just means the weather in a geographical region over a long time, in which case it is hardly global. How many climates are there in Australia anyway? At least AGW had a definition and was measurable. So why doesn’t the media broadcast the result that warming is not happening? It was the public statement of Pauchari head of the IPCC when he was last in Melbourne, but the IPCC persists to warn of climate change, but without global warming?

    So the impression of the media, the ABC in particular is that Global Warming is fearsome, real and you would be an idiot not to believe it. There is no attempt to justify such opinions or interview real Australian scientists. Climate Change is now part of the language of the media, of schools, of politicians and experts like Bernie Fraser. When will this idiocy end? When the money stops.

    70

  • #
    Walt Allensworth

    When Dr. Patrick Moore dumped Green Peace and then came out against the profiteers of doom that are pushing climate change Fox news picked it up right away.

    Here is some real news! A well respected ‘greeny’ from the left blows the whistle on Obama and Kerry!

    Go ahead and look for Patrick Moore on the news web sites ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN!

    See if you find this story!

    All you’ll find is stuff on Jillian Moore, salmon, the Bethlehem star, Grammy nominees, spider man … gawd.

    It is stunningly clear now that the main-stream-media moguls in the US are completely in the pocket of the far left.

    They’re publishing all the news they want you to see, and nothing else.

    Surprising? No.

    Still, I weep for this once great country.

    10

  • #
    Kipling

    “The bias is obvious in what they don’t say. Reporters are supposed to seek out and promote the most rational, well argued positions they can find. Instead they elevate themselves to defacto “science judges” and decide which scientists deserve to be heard. It could be called arrogance, or it could be called “lying by omission”.”

    It seems to me that this quote of itself describes ALL media quite effectively.

    There is no such thing in the world as unbiased full and thorough presentation of all facets of any story.

    What media has been reduced to, and to my mind far more blatantly in the private sector, is propaganda machine for specific ideology and/or causes.

    Ironically, I actually think that public owned media is the least biased. Let’s be clear here, I am not defending it as not biased… Just the least. In point of fact, I read an article on ABC’s the Drum by a former Liberal Staffer only yesterday, is that bias?

    00

  • #
    Kipling

    As to climate change, I am in fact a true sceptic in that I do not trust either side of the debate to be honest, thorough or able to acknowledge their own errors or flaws. As such, neither side has much credibility, this despite their myriad credentials.

    Further to that, the real issue is environmental damage/degradation and the AGW debating industry, whilst keeping the pro and cons employed and living comfortably, ignores that salient and very real issue.

    00