Another American media failure

posted at 8:47 am on March 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

In the years after the the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failure to find WMD, the American media flagellated itself publicly over its lack of skepticism of Bush administration cassus belli claims.  We endured reams of essays about the supine nature of the corporate-owned media, the supposed disinformation campaign of the White House, the “lies” on WMD claims (that had also been made by Democrats in Congress from 1998 until the invasion), and so on.  To this day, the American media still considers their self-described blind acceptance of claims about intelligence without sufficient investigation as an indictment on their industry — and a consequence of the Internet-driven changes to the media market.

After wearing sackcloth and ashes for so long, one might believe that the American national media would leap at the chance to show its newfound mission of skepticism and challenge to authority.  Unfortunately, US journalists have missed a grand opportunity to demonstrate that it learned a lesson about swallowing a story from the government without question, if indeed that is what happened in 2002 on Iraq.  We know this because their colleagues across the pond in the United Kingdom have not missed the chance to speak a little truth to power, both in their own government and to multilateral organizations that issued faulty analyses, false data, bad research, and hysterical demands for action.

Do I refer to our military efforts in Afghanistan?  In Pakistan?  Fiscal policy among the G-20?  No.  The Australian and British press have eaten the American media’s lunch on the collapse of credibility at the IPCC and in the anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) movement.  In the past four months, media outlets like the Times of London, the Telegraph, the Australian Herald-Sun, and even the Left-leaning paper The Guardian have broken important stories (along with bloggers) exposing the fraud, mismanagement, and unscientific behavior of the core group of AGW advocates, such as:

None of these — none — were exposed by a major American media outlet.  The efforts of the American press, with a couple of rare exceptions such as the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal, have mainly been to play down the significance of every revelation and to emphasize their view of scientific AGW “consensus.”  When the Washington Post finally got around to reporting on the East Anglia scandal, it provided only a straightforward but superficial recounting of the journalism done in the UK and Australia.  The New York Times didn’t even bother to do that much, saying that the collapse of the basis of Obama administration policy didn’t amount to a “three-alarm story.”

To this day, the American media has had almost nothing to add to the growing list of exposés accomplished by their Anglospheric cousins.  Bear in mind that our current government plans an unprecedented intrusion into the energy sector, entirely on the basis of the IPCC report that has been systematically dismantled by bastions of journalistic accomplishment like the Times of London, who got many of the above scoops.  Such a policy would give the federal government vast power over the economy and allow it to accrue massive amounts of fees and taxes, while dictating the rationing of both retail energy use and the means of producing it.

With all of that at stake, shouldn’t the American media have deployed its storied skepticism to some use on the AGW movement and the IPCC?  After all, it was only a few years ago — after the invasion over which the media wailed and self-criticized its credulousness — that we discovered that the UN had conducted the largest fraud in human history, the Oil-for-Food program that put billions of dollars into the pockets of Saddam Hussein while impoverishing the Iraqis the program was designed to protect.  Shouldn’t the American media have been even more skeptical, given the track record of accountability at Turtle Bay over the last decade?

Indeed it should — and indeed it didn’t, and still hasn’t.  Curiously, the American media has been almost entirely AWOL on the collapse of the IPCC and anthropogenic global-warming hysteria as its intelligence has been proven not just wrong, as the WMD intel from multiple Western nations was in Iraq, but blatantly fraudulent.  It has been exposed as mainly comprised of bad anecdotal recording, biased manipulations of data, and collations of hysterical claims by environmental extremists.

Forget learning “the lessons of Iraq.”  When will the American media take a cue from its colleagues in Britain and Australia and start learning the lessons of the IPCC and of Oil-for-Food?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Green is big business.
…..
reaganaut on March 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM

What I REALLY don’t understand is the print media is a very UN-GREEN business. Transportation, material and production is a very carbon negative event. If the Cap and Trade crew get their way, then newspaper costs will soar.

I doubt if the print industry could handle a 25%-35% increase in costs without a lot of them folding.

Though I personally dislike (most of) their slant in reporting, I hold out hope like a good Christian that they can be redeemed. I look to the UK or other business leaders to buy bankrupt newspapers and change their content to reflect the views of the people and regain their readership.

barnone on March 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM

There are still thousands of other studies, though, that suggest AGW is real.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Don’t bother. The popular version of AGW is Chicken Little panic-for-profit, and few here would believe in it at all unless their locale started to resemble Tatooine.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Note that the BBC, with its legions of journalists, millions of pounds in taxpayer funding and unrivalled global reach, is curiously absent from the list of media outlets that have exposed the various GW scandals. They’ve been heavily invested in promoting the AGW fraud for years, and like the IPCC and Al Gore they’re not ready to admit that the ‘consensus’ has been demolished.

EnglishMike on March 2, 2010 at 11:33 AM

few here would believe in it at all unless their locale started to resemble Tatooine.

Dark-Star

That still wouldn’t prove man is causing the climate to change. Just because climate change happens(and it has since the earth was created) doesn’t mean man is causing it. There are plenty of areas on this planet that resemble Tatooine today that didn’t in the past. Guess what? It wasn’t caused by suvs or Exxon.

xblade on March 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Hey, forget all that! Don’t be a h8r! Didja hear about this exciting group called the Coffee Party? It’s really grassrootsy ‘n’ fun ‘n’ stuff!

It’s really sad what’s happened to the American media. They have completely whored themselves out as propagandists.

In San Francisco, there used to be freebie communist newspapers in boxes down by the main bus terminal. Four or six page copies of “The Worker’s Daily,” that kind of crap. Just ridiculous junk. That’s what the mainstream media is turning into – hardcore lefty advocacy that no one reads or takes seriously.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

At least you got that one word right: “believe”.

As in, a matter of religious faith.

I choose to not believe in the religion of AGW – you know, “anthropogenic” – which claims that Man is the cause of global warming.

I am of the First Church of the Last and Only Solar Orb, which believes that it is the SUN that causes global warming, not any actions taken by humanity.

Those of you who worship at the cult of AGW can stay out of my wallet, thanks :)

Wanderlust on March 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Republicans would do better to spend their time coming up with non-draconian ways to deal with AGW than to spend it denying the obvious.

hicsuget-a-life on March 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM

The only thing obvious is your own self-indulging denial. Facts are bearing out this hoax, yet kool-aid is the preferred beverage of those who have been blinded by this propaganda.

Rovin on March 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I am of the First Church of the Last and Only Solar Orb, which believes that it is the SUN that causes global warming, not any actions taken by humanity.

Wanderlust on March 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM

The primary source of GW? Certainly.

But the ONLY source…that’s still up for debate. Unfortunately the one side is populated by fanatics and shell-gamers, and the other by mulish Anti’s.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM

What I REALLY don’t understand is the print media is a very UN-GREEN business. Transportation, material and production is a very carbon negative event.

barnone on March 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM

What I really don’t understand is how “carbon” got to be “un-green.” Without carbon, there is no green, no life on this planet whatsoever.

To me, this is the most preposterous lie from the left.

landlines on March 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Note that the BBC, with its legions of journalists, millions of pounds in taxpayer funding and unrivalled global reach, is curiously absent from the list of media outlets that have exposed the various GW scandals. They’ve been heavily invested in promoting the AGW fraud for years, and like the IPCC and Al Gore they’re not ready to admit that the ‘consensus’ has been demolished.

EnglishMike on March 2, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Pretty amusing (in a sick way), isn’t it? I eagerly checked the BBC website for a few months anticipating them having to eat crow at some point. Not a peep. They’ve got their world view and they’re sticking to it to the bitter end just like their nitwit comrades in the American media.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM

The primary source of GW? Certainly.

But the ONLY source…that’s still up for debate. Unfortunately the one side is populated by fanatics and shell-gamers, and the other by mulish Anti’s.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM

I’m sorry, now causation for “global warming” is up for debate again? How kind. I thought it was a “settled science” and non-believers were “deniers”?

Saltyron on March 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I thought it was a “settled science” and non-believers were “deniers”?

Saltyron on March 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM

It’s only that way now because, like many other debates, the whole thing has devolved into the one side saying “YES IT IS!” and the other saying “NO IT ISN’T!”

Actual, rational, scientific debate is simply impossible at this point. The best that can be done is to keep the AGW sky-is-falling freaks from turning their looniness into law.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM

The American Media didn’t report it because most of it is garbage:

University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists

The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work

Except that only a small fraction of data was tossed and can be reconstructed from the weather stations themselves. And contradictory data was “hidden” in plain site in papers.

No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol

Completely false. There was no rise in the fraction of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere after being produced. The CO2 content keeps rising. This may indicate that the fear of carbon sinks saturing is overblown.

I

PCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure
Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims
Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine
Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research

You repeat yourself several times here. Again, this is a 3000 page report containing thousands of references. Himalayagate is a reference problem. The Himalayans glaciers are *still retreating*. This has been measured from the ground and from space.

Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case

Known for years. The MWP may also still have just been confined to Europe and proxy temp measured indicate that it was.

Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets

Also accounted for. A recycled skeptic claim.

You forgot the part about how sea level rise claims were withdrawn … in favor of studies indicating faster sea level rise. And the mis-reading of Phil Jones comments when he said that the temperature has risen over the last 15 years but barely at the 95% confidence level (more like 80-90%).

This is just an ongoing onslaught of gotchya-ism and denial. And it is typically one-sided. During the time all this has gone on, many papers have been published on this subject. During this time, we found that the 2000′s were the hottest decade on record, 2009 was one of the hottest years on record. So far in 2010, record high temperatures were set in Africa, Asia and Australia and global temperature remain at a high peak. This is based on at least three independent temperature lines as well as satellite data. most of this data is public.

But the IPCC messed up a few references! It’s all a commie plot!

Hal_10000 on March 2, 2010 at 12:04 PM

That doesn’t take away from the fact that EVERYONE (left, middle, right) hates the media.

ckoeber on March 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM

But their reasons are totally different.

The folks on the right hate the media because the facts cannot be denied that the media is mostly a propaganda arm of the Democrats. The people on the right see this media lie and not report the facts when the facts hurt their Party, and they also see the media members admit they are in the tank for the Democrats.

The folks on the left “hate” the media for trivial reasons. As Ed noted, the same Democrats who said “Bush lied” in 2003 were themselves 5 years earlier themselves saying Saddam had WMDs. But in 2003, the media never reminded us of the Democrats’ hypocrisy in this matter.

Del Dolemonte on March 2, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Something that bothers me about the whole Climategate issue is this:Why did it take Climategate to open peoples’ eyes to the facts that there never was any real science behind the AGW fallacy?People who have changed their opinion on AGW have done so because of the small lies,not bwacuse of the big one.I guess this just proves the old adage that people will accept the most outrageous lie as truth.

DDT on March 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM

But the IPCC messed up a few references! It’s all a commie plot!

Hal_10000 on March 2, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Hi, Al! How’s Tipper?

Del Dolemonte on March 2, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Hal_10000 on March 2, 2010 at 12:04 PM

You are in deep, deep denial. “So they lied a little bit! So what?!” The entire case for AGW has been destroyed by the AGW charlatans themselves. The rigid, ideological agenda flogging your type of thinking represents is a bigger threat to humanity than AGW.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Looks like Hal needs a core dump…………

All hail the Messiah!

dmann on March 2, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Actual, rational, scientific debate is simply impossible at this point. The best that can be done is to keep the AGW sky-is-falling freaks from turning their looniness into law.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010

Wrong. Rational scientific debate is possible. It happens all the time in many areas. The key is to keep politician’s grubby fingers off the debate and studiously question the motives of those “scientists” who have a financial stake in the reported results.

SKYFOX on March 2, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Something that bothers me about the whole Climategate issue is this:Why did it take Climategate to open peoples’ eyes to the facts that there never was any real science behind the AGW fallacy?

DDT on March 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM

It’s because of the “rules” of political correctness and their accompanying browbeating that have taken over public consciousness in the last thirty years or so. To question liberal “science” is to commit a double-plus ungood thought crime. It’s the non-critical critical thinking that is taught by academia and reinforced in the media.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

The key is to keep politician’s grubby fingers off the debate and studiously question the motives of those “scientists” who have a financial stake in the reported results.

SKYFOX on March 2, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Touche.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 12:19 PM

It’s only that way now because, like many other debates, the whole thing has devolved into the one side saying “YES IT IS!” and the other saying “NO IT ISN’T!”

Actual, rational, scientific debate is simply impossible at this point. The best that can be done is to keep the AGW sky-is-falling freaks from turning their looniness into law.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM

It devolved because it became political. Real or not, “AGW” was used as a tool to institute central planning schemes for increase govt. control of persons and economies. I’m more concerned about an asteroid hit than “AGW”, but what do “you” know about steps being taken to avoid that? I mean, it’s not like it hasn’t happened to to this planet before, and it would make any “man-made damage” to the planet look like a love tap. But there’s the kicker- no communist economic-control headway can be made from a “true threat” to the planet, so we have to make one up/support one that does play into that agenda.

It was, is and always will be the burden of those asserting that global warming is man-made to prove that assertion. And the release of this fraudulent and unprofessional scientific behavior has completely tarnished that. Put it on a micro level and ask yourself if you’d considered being cut into by a surgeon that behaved similarly.

All these years we hear “scientists say AGW is real” but WHO are the scientists? Why do people just “believe” this? Because they actually reviewed the science, or were taught it? NO, they heard the same mantra repeated in media and entertainment like a call to prayer, and thus “believe” like any religious worshiper does- because the “high priest” said so.

Now the “high priests” are being revealed for the truth molesters they are, and FAITH in TRUTH is shaken.

Apply to economics, politics, banking, investment, etc. and you realize why this country is in the shape it now is. Relying on, and having “trust” in, “experts” that are anything but.

Saltyron on March 2, 2010 at 12:26 PM

The only thing obvious is your own self-indulging denial. Facts are bearing out this hoax, yet kool-aid is the preferred beverage of those who have been blinded by this propaganda.

Rovin on March 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM

You are in deep, deep denial. “So they lied a little bit! So what?!” The entire case for AGW has been destroyed by the AGW charlatans themselves. The rigid, ideological agenda flogging your type of thinking represents is a bigger threat to humanity than AGW.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Reflexive deniers accusing the rest of us of being reflexive deniers? Classic projection.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Great post, Ed

John the Libertarian on March 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM

The Leftoid MSM (and their fiscal backers) can’t afford to lose on both Obamacare and AGW!

We need hazardous, mercury-filled fluorescent light bulbs to replace the innocuous incandescent lamp! We need crippling carbon taxes! We need to derail American industries with massive, new, intrusive, pseudo-scientific regulations!

To save poor, widdle Gaia.

profitsbeard on March 2, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Time to figure out every investment ManBearPig has and go short on it. Except for Apple.

Scott P on March 2, 2010 at 12:53 PM

But the ONLY source…that’s still up for debate. Unfortunately the one side is populated by fanatics and shell-gamers, and the other by mulish Anti’s.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Find one piece of evidence that shows that man is a major source of global warming. Just one, I dare you.
The fact is the only evidence being presented are these badly broken computer models.

The real world shows that CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas and that the bulk of the feedbacks are strongly negative.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Except that only a small fraction of data was tossed and can be reconstructed from the weather stations themselves. And contradictory data was “hidden” in plain site in papers.

Jones was lying when he said that he had lost his data?
Can you provide the list of stations that Jones used to create his data set?
Can you provide the methods by which the raw data was massaged in order to get the final data?
If you can, you are doing much better then the man you are trying to defend.

You repeat yourself several times here. Again, this is a 3000 page report containing thousands of references. Himalayagate is a reference problem. The Himalayans glaciers are *still retreating*. This has been measured from the ground and from space.

You seem to labor under the misimpression that the bulk of those 3000 pages actually support your opinion. They don’t and never did.
The Himilayan glaciers advance and retreat all of the time.

Known for years. The MWP may also still have just been confined to Europe and proxy temp measured indicate that it was.

Except for those hundreds of proxies from around the world that have found that the MWP was a world wide phenomena and it was warmer than today.

Also accounted for. A recycled skeptic claim.

Actually, the alleged accounting for is one of the papers that got blown up when asked to provide the data behind it.
There wasn’t any. Additionally the researcher claimed that all of his stations were pure, having few if any moves or local contamination issues. Of the few stations people have been able to locate, this claim was shown to be completely false, and it was impossible for the researcher not to have known it.
The claim that UHI has been accounted for has been falsified, over and over again.

You forgot the part about how sea level rise claims were withdrawn … in favor of studies indicating faster sea level rise.

I love the way the AGW crowd tries to substitute one lie for another.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 1:23 PM

During this time, we found that the 2000’s were the hottest decade on record, 2009 was one of the hottest years on record. So far in 2010, record high temperatures were set in Africa, Asia and Australia and global temperature remain at a high peak. This is based on at least three independent temperature lines as well as satellite data. most of this data is public.

But the IPCC messed up a few references! It’s all a commie plot!

Hal_10000 on March 2, 2010 at 12:04 PM

If you stick those fingers any further into your ears, you might just manage to find some brain matter.

The claim that 2000 was the hottest year is based on the same discredited studies that you have been trying to defend.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Why did it take Climategate to open peoples’ eyes to the facts that there never was any real science behind the AGW fallacy?

DDT on March 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Because most people still take what the media tells them as gospel, and never question it, never look for the story behind the story.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Reflexive deniers accusing the rest of us of being reflexive deniers? Classic projection.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Recognizing that the non-existent case for AGW has been completely exposed is denial?

Next you’ll be telling me I’m in denial because I still believe that the sun rises in the east.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM

With all of that at stake, shouldn’t the American media have deployed its storied skepticism to some use on the AGW movement and the IPCC?

Ah, the age old dilemma: how to extract oneself from a cesspool without anyone noticing you’re covered in crap.

American media obviously hasn’t solved that puzzle, either.

karl9000 on March 2, 2010 at 1:39 PM

SOMEBODY needs to go to jail!

Star20 on March 2, 2010 at 1:43 PM

No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol

Hmmm.
That could easily be misread as something more than it is.
To be clear, the fraction of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide has been trending significantly upward. I’m not entirely sure what the “carbon fraction” mentioned here is (none of the links really explain it), but my guess would be its something about the isotope ratios, which would say something about how quickly the fossil fuel carbon gets recycled into the oceans and plant life.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM

By the way, has not even Fox broken any of this stuff?

Count to 10 on March 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Try reversing the order of these two statements:

To this day, the American media has had almost nothing to add to the growing list of exposés accomplished by their Anglospheric cousins. Bear in mind that our current government plans an unprecedented intrusion into the energy sector, entirely on the basis of the IPCC report that has been systematically dismantled by bastions of journalistic accomplishment like the Times of London, who got many of the above scoops.

as in

Bear in mind that our current government plans an unprecedented intrusion into the energy sector, entirely on the basis of the IPCC report … To this day, the American media has had almost nothing to add to the growing list of exposés accomplished by their Anglospheric cousins.

and suddenly cause and effect are clear. Just like Chris Matthews, the media is trying to help Obama with his agenda. Actual journalism would just get in the way of that.

tom on March 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Reflexive deniers accusing the rest of us of being reflexive deniers? Classic projection.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM

“I know you are, what am I?” is not a legitimate, adult response. The articles Ed references and the enormous implications of the information revealed in them are not trivial. Simply calling people cranks because they are questioning pet theories that are backed up deception, fraud and bullying only makes your position look worse.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Hmmm.
That could easily be misread as something more than it is.
To be clear, the fraction of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide has been trending significantly upward. I’m not entirely sure what the “carbon fraction” mentioned here is (none of the links really explain it), but my guess would be its something about the isotope ratios, which would say something about how quickly the fossil fuel carbon gets recycled into the oceans and plant life.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM

It has to do with the percentage of new carbon released into the air, that stays in the air.

What it shows is that the carbon sinks are not saturation, which is one of the mechanisms by which the alarmists try to claim that death is rapidly approaching.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Curiously, the American media has been almost entirely AWOL on the collapse of the IPCC and anthropogenic global-warming hysteria as its intelligence has been proven not just wrong, as the WMD intel from multiple Western nations was in Iraq, but blatantly fraudulent.

Hate to derail you while you’re making a very solid contrast, but the intelligence was not really proven wrong. The best you could say is that the expected overwhelming evidence that it was right was never found. There is still incontrovertible evidence though to prove that Saddam had WMD’s at some point (he used them against Iran and against the Kurds), and a complete lack of evidence that he ever got rid of them. The conclusion that he never had any was politically convenient, but factually wrong.

And here we are right back at global warming. The theory is factually wrong, but politically convenient. So guess what they media claims to be true.

tom on March 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM

“I know you are, what am I?” is not a legitimate, adult response.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM

I agree. That is why I was calling out you and Rovin for using it. I was a climate change skeptic myself until I took a closer look at the East Anglia kerfluffle–one botched study does not disprove a thousand others, and wishful thinking is not a substitute for a critical examination of the facts.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

And here we are right back at global warming. The theory is factually wrong, but politically convenient. So guess what they media claims to be true.

tom on March 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM

This argument cuts both ways: the theory that AGW is hooey is politically convenient for Republicans, and thus it is what the right-wing media claims to be true.

Even if Ed or Allah did believe in AGW, if they said as much on HotAir they’d lose readership as fast as Charles Johnson did when he decided to print that Muslims are human beings too. I doubt the new management team would appreciate the ensuing loss of revenue.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Between the supposed failure to proof Bush’s basis for the Iraq war, and the actual failure to report climate change fraud, one will find a rather terminal case of failure to report to the American people the true nature of the character of the man who would go on to become President in 2009.

paul1149 on March 2, 2010 at 3:38 PM

I agree. That is why I was calling out you and Rovin for using it. I was a climate change skeptic myself until I took a closer look at the East Anglia kerfluffle–one botched study does not disprove a thousand others, and wishful thinking is not a substitute for a critical examination of the facts.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

YOu don’t even manage to lie well.

Where are these alleged thousand other studies that you keep crowing about? You won’t link to them because they exist only in your imagination.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 4:10 PM

And here we are right back at global warming. The theory is factually wrong, but politically convenient. So guess what they media claims to be true.

tom on March 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM

This argument cuts both ways: the theory that AGW is hooey is politically convenient for Republicans, and thus it is what the right-wing media claims to be true.

Even if Ed or Allah did believe in AGW, if they said as much on HotAir they’d lose readership as fast as Charles Johnson did when he decided to print that Muslims are human beings too. I doubt the new management team would appreciate the ensuing loss of revenue.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Politically convenient but factually wrong == “settled science.” You’d have to be blind not to see the parallels with Iraq. Or liberal, which amounts to the same thing.

You’re a hypocrite. You’ll make pronouncements of how you believe the “settled science.” But when it turns out that the settled science is based on hiding inconvenient data, refusing to let so-called peer review have the same raw data that you started with, and lying about your results to keep the government money spigot going, then your opinion is not science at all.

The problem with the AGW theory is not “mistakes” or “incorrect data.” The problem is apparent attempted fraud. And the closer the supposed science is examined, the more fraud is found.

tom on March 2, 2010 at 4:11 PM

This argument cuts both ways: the theory that AGW is hooey is politically convenient for Republicans, and thus it is what the right-wing media claims to be true.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Ah yes, the old, the media isn’t openly communist, therefore they’re right wing dodge.

The fact that AGW is hooey is neither right wing, nor left wing. It’s reality.

I’ve been asking for weeks for you to present evidence that supports your claim that AGW is fact.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I was a climate change skeptic myself until I took a closer look at the East Anglia kerfluffle–one botched study does not disprove a thousand others, and wishful thinking is not a substitute for a critical examination of the facts.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

It wasn’t just one botched study. It was the study that all others are based on.
It wasn’t just botched it is fraudulent, as Jones makes clear when he spent years trying to hide his data and methods.
It was more than just a fraudulent study, it was the fact that Jones et. al. went through back door channels to pressure various journals into not printing any study that contradicted their world view.

As to your claim that you were a skeptic until after the Jones was revealed to be a fraud. That doesn’t square with posts by you defending the AGW fraud going back more than a year.

MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 4:15 PM

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Don’t bother. … few here would believe in it at all unless their locale started to resemble Tatooine.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Don’t you mean Waterworld?

Or is the whole sea-level-rise thingy off the menu now? (I must not have gotten the memo.)

RD on March 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM

I agree. That is why I was calling out you and Rovin for using it. I was a climate change skeptic myself until I took a closer look at the East Anglia kerfluffle–one botched study does not disprove a thousand others, and wishful thinking is not a substitute for a critical examination of the facts.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

And you’re right back to “I know you are, etc.” The only wishful thinking involved here is your refusal to acknowledge the “inconvenient truth” in the news stories linked above. And no amount of calling people right wing nuts and holocaust deniers is going to make those extremely damaging stories go away.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM

It wasn’t just one botched study….
MarkTheGreat on March 2, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Exactly. I mean, my God, the outright fraud, bullying and ineptitude is astounding and the refusal of the AGW advocates to even recognize legitimate concerns is very telling. Instead, we get the same old lefty insults, obscenities and finger pointing.

Django on March 2, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Fantastic article Ed. (And great late-breaking comments MarkTheGreat!)

None of these — none — were exposed by a major American media outlet.

For my money the scandal isn’t that they can’t dig up any stories here, it’s that they can’t even be bothered to report on what somebody else has found!

They may be too dim to cover the scandal itself, but they could at least cover the coverage.

RD on March 2, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Isn’t it time for Hal 1000 to say “Stop Dave. Please stop”?

inspectorudy on March 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Or is the whole sea-level-rise thingy off the menu now? (I must not have gotten the memo.)

RD on March 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM

I’m exaggerating for effect; even extreme global warming wouldn’t be likely to shut off rainfall on that level. And by that point there would be other problems to deal with.

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 6:10 PM

The American media is disgustingly biased. Investigative journalism is dead in the big media outlets. Often they are guilty of helping kill a story instead of raising the alarms.

I have long argued that this global warming BS was going to damage the green movement in the long run. Back before all this AGW hysteria recycling was really taking off and people were starting to embrace the idea of lessening their impact on the planet on the grounds of it being the sensible thing to do.

Then this psuedo-science AGW crap started to be peddled as absolute proof drastic steps need to be taken on a global scale before imminent crisis occurred. Oh, but you can’t see the data or verify our methods you flat-earth skeptic. The debate is over!

Now I don’t see that many people being conscience about recycling and reducing their own impact. I haven’t had a local recycling program in a decade of moving around the country. Everybody thought global greenhouse governing was the answer and their own contributions mattered little.

Now the whole thing is exposed as an agenda driven scam. The next words out of their mouths are going to met with great skepticism. People now feel apathetic about going green and won’t be receptive to another fear driven message.

Buying a hybrid or an electric vehicle is often more driven to save on fuel prices than to go green. It’s an acceptable benefit if it doesn’t create a compromise to your lifestyle.

Mr Purple on March 2, 2010 at 7:02 PM

This argument cuts both ways: the theory that AGW is hooey is politically convenient for Republicans, and thus it is what the right-wing media claims to be true.

hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Well the CRU scandal verifies exactly what the skeptics have been saying. The allegations of misrepresented data were proven. Incidents of ‘cherry picked’ data have been proven. Accepted scientific practices of releasing your data and methods were violated. The peer review process was completely avoided in many instances.

What is proven is that the process needs to be opened up to accept critical viewpoints. Data needs to be made public and the results verifiable by peers.

Check out this article ‘Explosion of the Fearmongers
The Greenhousers Strike Back and Out’:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html

“In 1995 IPCC presented its second report: The Science of Climate Change”. In this report a large number of researchers work through hundreds of scientific reports and delivers a comprehensive report where they conclude that there is no evidence that human beings have had an influence on the climate. This conclusion is of course very important for politicians and policymakers around the world. But what happened? The editor of the IPCC ­report then deleted or changed the text in 15 different sections of chapter 8 (The key chapter concerning whether human influence exists or not) which had been agreed upon by the panel of contributors involved in compiling the document. In practice politicians and policymakers only read the so-called Executive Summary for Policy Makers. In this document consisting of a few pages it is clearly stated that humans have influenced the climate, contrary to the conclusions of the scientific report.

“Professor Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy, wrote in the Wall Street Journal already the 12th of June 1996 about a major deception on global warming: “I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” He gave many examples of changes and redefinitions and finished by demanding that the IPCC process should be abandoned.

“Had somebody subordinate to Bert Bolin within IPCC made these changes it is reasonable to think that Bert Bolin himself would correct the errors. That he has not done is why I draw the conclusion that it must be Bert Bolin himself who is responsible for the changes and no subordinate person has dared interfere with his boss.”

I think that we will find that from at least 1995 this movement has been more about political agendas than scientific fact.

Mr Purple on March 2, 2010 at 7:25 PM

I was a climate change skeptic myself until …
hicsuget on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Next he’s going to call himself a Concerned Christian Conservative (TM).

Enkidu on March 2, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Oh come on Ed. This is different.

misterpeasea on March 2, 2010 at 8:37 PM

the point being? That American MSM is a tool of the Left? News flash, that horse has been pulverized!

pgrossjr on March 2, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Great reporting, Ed.

In an honest world, flushing out this media malpractice should win some type of award.

aquaviva on March 3, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Major media crying in their beer about loosing revenue and popularity with the public when Fox News leads the way. Did the MSM ever try to change their personality from the lying left? NO! They would rather whine and cry than report the truth. How dare you not think like the left.

mixplix on March 3, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2