ST said:http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
February 15, 2007
Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
By Alan Caruba
(AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -
As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up. There is
something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
report summary, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
"could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
actually be altered to reflect the initial summary. That is not science. It
is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
for an alternative source of information.
More bull, like that propagated by your dear president. This kind of
horsesh*t was quoted by pro-oil businesses and their scientists (and,
of course, Bush himself) in trying to make out that global warming was
all nonsense. It's not, it's real, the icecaps are melting and there
is undeniable proof of all that.
Quoted message said:From environment.newscientist.com
Instant Expert: Climate Change
Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the
future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in
disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of
Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods.
Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat
waves.
Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in
ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is
now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have
all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth
has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period
when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles
and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal
inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the
pipeline.
Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human
activities and there are growing fears of feedbacks that will
accelerate this warming.
-------
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2016244,00.html
Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice
caps
David Adam, environment correspondent
Monday February 19, 2007
A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be
inevitable because of global warming, the world's scientists are
preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and
Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50%
chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided"
because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the
scientists say. It would cause "major changes in coastline and
inundation of low-lying areas" and require "costly and challenging"
efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable
areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance
of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low".
The melting process could take centuries, but increased warming caused
by a failure to cut emissions would accelerate the ice sheets' demise,
and give nations less time to adapt to the consequences. Areas such as
the Maldives would be swamped and low-lying countries such as the
Netherlands and Bangladesh, as well as coastal cities including
London, New York and Tokyo, would face critical flooding.
The warning appears in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which assesses the likely impacts of global warming
and will be published in April. A final draft of the report's summary-
for-policymakers chapter, obtained by the Guardian, says: "Very large
sea level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in
coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in
river deltas.
"Relocating populations, economic activity and infrastructure would be
costly and challenging. There is medium confidence that both ice
sheets would be committed to partial deglaciation for a global average
temperature increase greater than 1-2C, causing sea level rise of 4-6m
over centuries to millennia." Medium confidence means about a five in
10 chance.
The revelation comes as a new report points out that greenhouse gas
emissions running into hundreds of millions of tonnes have not been
disclosed by Britain's biggest businesses, masking the full extent of
the UK's contribution to global warming. According to a report by
Christian Aid, only 16 of Britain's top 100 listed companies are
meeting the government's most elementary reporting guidelines on
greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, almost 200m tonnes of damaging
CO2 is estimated to be missing from the annual reports of FTSE 100
companies. The figure is more than the annual reported emissions of
Pakistan and Greece combined.
This month the IPCC published a separate study on the science of
climate change, which concluded that humans are "very likely" to be
responsible for most of the recent warming, and that average
temperatures would probably increase by 4C this century if emissions
continue to rise. Even under its most optimistic scenario, based on a
declining world population and a rapid switch to clean technology,
temperatures are still likely to rise by 1.8C.
The new report is expected to say this means there is "a significant
probability that some large-scale events (eg deglaciation of major ice
sheets) may no longer be avoided due to historical greenhouse gas
emissions and the inertia of the climate system". Scientists involved
with the IPCC process cannot talk publicly about its contents before
publication. But a senior author on the report said: "It's not rocket
science to realise that with the numbers coming out from the IPCC
[science report], the warming by the end of the century is enough to
do that." The report's conclusion poses a conundrum for governments of
how to address a problem that is inevitable but may not occur for
hundreds or thousands of years. "That's for the policy makers to
decide but it really is a very difficult question," the source said.
"Those are moral questions and the answer you give will depend very
much on which part of the world you live in."
Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona,
said the key question was not whether the ice sheets would break up,
but how quickly. Some models suggest rapid melting that would bring
sea level rises of more than a metre per century. "That would be much
harder for us to cope with," he says.
The IPCC science report predicted sea level rises of up to 0.59m by
the end of the century. But that does not include the possible
contribution from ice sheets, because the experts judged it too
unpredictable to forecast over short timescales.
-------
What agenda could scientists possibly have for faking such data? What
financial gain would be achieved? There is far more financial gain
possible for those who claim climate change is not real, that big
businesses can go on behaving as before, that oil companies don't have
to limit their production, that governments don't have to change their
policies. If any side has something to gain from untruths, it is those
who advocate doing nothing, who claim that all is fine.
Read the IPCC report, or articles about it. And stop writing [censored]
pretending that the problem doesn't exist. You are like an ostrich
with it's head in the sand...wake up, smell the daisies and look with
open eyes at what is a huge amount of evidence, plus an ever-growing
number of scientists that agree. You are a flat-earther, nothing
else.
