Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Over the past week we have looked at several very potent symbols that were misused by major media campaigns that pushed a political agenda to promote vigorous action to combat global warming. We saw that they had to ignore basic arithmetic to paint polar bears as threatened, hyperventilate over GRACE findings that less than 0.5% of East Antarctic ice may have disappeared, and ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
It would be very easy to write exactly the same type of story about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and floods, the Amazon rainforest and African agriculture. In all cases, grey literature, a lack of perspective and some dubious research were packaged together to paint a widely disseminated but inaccurate portrait of danger posed by global warming.
But in this guest post I would like to talk about the media campaigns themselves. I have a bit of experience in this, as I have been advising companies on media strategies for almost 20 years now.
An organisation like Greenpeace, with a budget of $213 million for 2007, doesn’t say how much it spent on advertising, although they report spending over $3 million on media and communications. However, a source has told me that their combined media spend (and including that of their 27 country offices) comes to a bit over $50 million. The German branch of Greenpeace spent $2.5 million on advertising just by itself.
Greenpeace International spends its money on ‘campaigns’ such as Oceans, Forests and Trees. And of course, Climate and Energy, on which Greenpeace International spent $4.3 million. And much of the money spent on their campaigns is on advertising. (And of course, a lot is spent on fundraising, staff and things like maintaining the Rainbow Warrior.)
But I don’t want to pick on Greenpeace. Wikipedia has a list of about 500 environmental organisations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations
So let’s talk about what I think actually happens. Let’s say that the WWF commissions a scientific research project about, for example, the Amazonian rain forest. They identify a scientist who has demonstrated his commitment to ecological principles by working to save the Amazon for over 20 years–someone like Daniel Nepstad. They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know. The report comes out saying not just that rain forests like rain, but that even a slight decrease in precipitation can have disastrous effects on the rain forest.
WWF puts out a press release and targets some advertising to show the Amazon turned into a desert, or savannah. Another organisation pipes up with their own analysis of satellite photography of the Amazon that may lend support. Other environmental organisations piggy-back on the WWF’s work with their own press releases, advertising, op-ed contributions, letters to the editor and to politicians (Greenpeace alone has 2.8 million members), and it becomes big news. The fact that it is becoming big news stimulates a second round of media targeting, going after the mainstream media, getting columnists and broadcasters to cover the story–because the story now is the media campaign, not just the Amazon (which by itself is too remote to touch the flinty hearts of editors).
It gives the appearance of a well-coordinated campaign, thought up in the boardrooms of people that readers here have already indicated they distrust, like George Soros or Maurice Strong. But the odds are very good that it is not. It is quick reaction by sympathetic organisations taking advantage of an opportunity to reinforce messages that they have supported since they came into existence.
So I’m not suggesting a plot, or a worldwide conspiracy. As these organisations have grown, they have gotten rich enough to employ savvy media professionals, who do communicate with each other and are quick to spot the main chance. (Sort of like me being willing to help Anthony with a few guest posts, no matter how much I rile up the regulars.)
These people have calenders of relevant upcoming events, from local elections to Earth Day. They have rolodexes with each others’ names as well as all the journalists and politicians they can grab–and they share. They have a forward publishing schedule, so they often know what sister organisations are going to come out with, so they can coordinate similar releases.
It’s like the blogosphere, in a way–only with money. Lots of it. They have a lot of political and economic clout and they are determined to use it. If some mistakes are made along the way, they are willing to ride it out and persevere. The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal, despite protestations from people like Naomi Oreskes. The think tanks are mostly marginally concerned about climate change, and there is nothing like a calendar or publishing schedule. Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.
This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that.
But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfulleThe Media Campaigns That Promote Dubious Science Thomas Fuller
Over the past week we have looked at several very potent symbols that were misused by major media campaigns that pushed a political agenda to promote vigorous action to combat global warming. We saw that they had to ignore basic arithmetic to paint polar bears as threatened, hyperventilate over GRACE findings that less than 0.5% of East Antarctic ice may have disappeared, and ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
It would be very easy to write exactly the same type of story about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and floods, the Amazon rainforest and African agriculture. In all cases, grey literature, a lack of perspective and some dubious research were packaged together to paint a widely disseminated but inaccurate portrait of danger posed by global warming.
But in this guest post I would like to talk about the media campaigns themselves. I have a bit of experience in this, as I have been advising companies on media strategies for almost 20 years now.
An organisation like Greenpeace, with a budget of $213 million for 2007, doesn’t say how much it spent on advertising, although they report spending over $3 million on media and communications. However, a source has told me that their combined media spend (and including that of their 27 country offices) comes to a bit over $50 million. The German branch of Greenpeace spent $2.5 million on advertising just by itself.
Greenpeace International spends its money on ‘campaigns’ such as Oceans, Forests and Trees. And of course, Climate and Energy, on which Greenpeace International spent $4.3 million. And much of the money spent on their campaigns is on advertising. (And of course, a lot is spent on fundraising, staff and things like maintaining the Rainbow Warrior.)
But I don’t want to pick on Greenpeace. Wikipedia has a list of about 500 environmental organisations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations
So let’s talk about what I think actually happens. Let’s say that the WWF commissions a scientific research project about, for example, the Amazonian rain forest. They identify a scientist who has demonstrated his commitment to ecological principles by working to save the Amazon for over 20 years–someone like Daniel Nepstad. They structure his research in line with his previous output, guaranteeing that the results will be in line with what they already know. The report comes out saying not just that rain forests like rain, but that even a slight decrease in precipitation can have disastrous effects on the rain forest.
WWF puts out a press release and targets some advertising to show the Amazon turned into a desert, or savannah. Another organisation pipes up with their own analysis of satellite photography of the Amazon that may lend support. Other environmental organisations piggy-back on the WWF’s work with their own press releases, advertising, op-ed contributions, letters to the editor and to politicians (Greenpeace alone has 2.8 million members), and it becomes big news. The fact that it is becoming big news stimulates a second round of media targeting, going after the mainstream media, getting columnists and broadcasters to cover the story–because the story now is the media campaign, not just the Amazon (which by itself is too remote to touch the flinty hearts of editors).
It gives the appearance of a well-coordinated campaign, thought up in the boardrooms of people that readers here have already indicated they distrust, like George Soros or Maurice Strong. But the odds are very good that it is not. It is quick reaction by sympathetic organisations taking advantage of an opportunity to reinforce messages that they have supported since they came into existence.
So I’m not suggesting a plot, or a worldwide conspiracy. As these organisations have grown, they have gotten rich enough to employ savvy media professionals, who do communicate with each other and are quick to spot the main chance. (Sort of like me being willing to help Anthony with a few guest posts, no matter how much I rile up the regulars.)
These people have calenders of relevant upcoming events, from local elections to Earth Day. They have rolodexes with each others’ names as well as all the journalists and politicians they can grab–and they share. They have a forward publishing schedule, so they often know what sister organisations are going to come out with, so they can coordinate similar releases.
It’s like the blogosphere, in a way–only with money. Lots of it. They have a lot of political and economic clout and they are determined to use it. If some mistakes are made along the way, they are willing to ride it out and persevere. The skeptics have nothing like this at their disposal, despite protestations from people like Naomi Oreskes. The think tanks are mostly marginally concerned about climate change, and there is nothing like a calendar or publishing schedule. Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.
This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that. But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government. There is no need of a conspiracy theory to explain events of the past two decades.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfullerr
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The trouble is that if all that they predict, and therefore their credibility, doesn’t happen, and (as is likely) either nothing changes or it gets cooler, then the egg on their respective faces is going to cost an arm and a leg to remove. And that, of course, will cost them future funding…
What I feel is the worst part of it all is the companies, corporations and especially banks that help the WWF (for example..) gain money be charging just a bit extra, but from a large amount of people. This is of course good PR for the banks and WWF both and is getting harder and harder to avoid as a customer in general. Can’t continue writing because i would end up ranting and cursing on this scandalous trade and criminal business from these so called NGO:s.
The CAGW fanatics have learnt well from a master propagandist, who wrote: “A lie that is a good lie (that is, an effective one) is always a better lie if it is a whopper! The capacity of the masses for absorbing an idea is limited. So make it simple.
“And give it to them in black and white, no half-tones! For otherwise you miss the entire purpose of propaganda, which is to present a clear view of the situation on which the masses are willing to act.”
It may not be the goal of these organizations, but global government is the goal of the Maurice Strong crowd, the IPCC and a group of individuals (ManBearPig included) and banks who stand to get filthy rich off cap and trade and end up with world level powers. Global government was part of the Copenhagen agreement – no details given but the entity was included.
Conspiracy by the environmentalist organizations does not mean that others are not.
He who controls the energy flow (by pricing) controls every aspect of every economy.
“Opposition to climate activisim is completely ad hoc, which is why it is so surprising that they have had some tactical successes.”
=========================================================
I think it might have something to do with a thing we like to call TRUTH.
These organization may not have a goal of a global government, but that does not mean that others do not. Maurice Strong’s group has that goal and has stated it publicly. Strong set up the IPCC to make the case for control of emissions and part of this goal is that emissions control is meaningless unless it is enforced worldwide.
There is a group of individuals (ManBearPig included), banks, and governments who stand to make huge fortunes from cap and trade, and the people who determine the market price of carbon will control the world’s economies.
He who controls the energy controls everything.
So there are many little gangs that keep track of what’s going on and what everyone else is doing and when they all jump on the same opportunities it only looks like they have some sort of central command, there is no unifying organization. The Mafia does not exist.
Got it.
Are you one of those anti-science right wingers I have been hearing so much about?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Is-the-Right-Wing-Anti-Science-4985
REPLY: No, we aren’t. Anthony is apparently a Democrat. I’m a libertarian, which is orthogonal to the political axis, and the others here vary widely. Calling right wingers anti-science, though, is just a slight twist on the Alinskyist rule that leftists should always call anybody who agrees with them a racist. – Mike
WWF, Greenpeace…you’ve been able to name some of the organisations who employ those “savvy media professionals”. You really were keeping us in suspense for a while, Thomas. It was as if those media types were just doing it on their own. It’s a great moment for you.
No scientists are in on the scam! Whew. That will come as a relief to Australians, who looked like having to pay huge power bills to subsidise medieval technology; who were going to be exposed to ubiquitous carbon taxes as well as the inflation caused by that wet dream of all stock-jobbers, spivs, skimmers, scammers and touts: an ETS.
Since there’s no scientists in on the deal, just media tossers, we’ll be cool now…yes?
Tom, thanks for your posts – they are thought provoking.
However what part about the coordinated actions you describe isn’t a conspiracy?
This lovely little piece that Andrew Bolt highlighted.
“In fact, it’s exactly this inner tyrant that Greenpeace has deliberately sought to tempt with its commercial featuring a hooded boy coached into believing adults are killing his world.
“By the time I grow up there won’t be any fish left in the sea,” he says with a menacing scowl.
“Clean air will be a thing of the past, polar ice caps will be gone, oceans will rise, entire countries will disappear … There could be famine, worldwide epidemics …
“We’re not just talking about the future, we’re talking about my future.”
Believe all that and you’re excused the threat this boy makes next: “Starting today, the lines are drawn. You have to choose sides. You can be for my future or you’re against it. You’re a friend, or you’re an enemy.
“I may be just a kid a today, but tomorrow will be different …
“You’ve had your chance to fix this problem. Now we have ours. We won’t be cute. We won’t be patronised. We won’t be denied our future.”
I’m reminded irresistibly not just of James J. Lee but of the scene in Cabaret, in which a beautiful boy, eyes brightly steeled with moral fervour, starts sweetly to sing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
And only as the camera pans out do you see him in his Hitler Youth uniform, with shirt of forest brown.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_freen_totalitarian_itch/
That kid should get out more and play footy and it might teach him to look at the world around him more. I know my 11 yo lad has got particularly muddy this year after our 14 year drought has ended so spectacularly here in SE Aus.
Cheers Jack
As cheap money runs out….small pockets of common sense start to prevail.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7997668/Climate-change-is-inevitable-says-Caroline-Spelman.html
Tom, good explanation. The psychology of it is not new tho. It’s been the same for eons. It’s always some individual or organization who declares themselves the “Savior of Mankind ( or a subset thereof )” from some looming disaster or another, if only we (the Unenlightened ) would put them in charge. What has changed is their reach via modern tech.
That having been said is all true and accurate. There is probably no concerted desire by the AGW advocates to rule the world but it does play the role of “useful idiots” to the gang who do want to rule the world. Politicians.
The ongoing and unrelenting pro AGW propaganda that pours out of the MSM is quite astonishing, only slightly more astonishing than the paucity of “skeptical” material in that same media. Obviously money plays it’s part but I think much more is to be laid at the feet of classical and liberal arts education which seems to send a good portion of it’s human output into the “meedja”. These are generally people who have stuck religiously to their student socialist leanings and now see themselves as being part of the team that will save the world from the nasty humans.
What is very encouraging though, is the number of sensible , ordinary, people who don’t know much about AGW other than it smells funny. They apply the sniff test and so remain hugely unconvinced and are joined by more and more who decide to step into the light. Perhaps it’s the increasing energy bills, the behavior of the chattering busybodies or those hideous and irritating wind generators.
Propaganda only works for so long before people start to see the lies for what they are. Thirty years into this global catastrophe and none of the predictions are true. The man on the Clapham omnibus isn’t an idiot no matter what the smart arses tell him to the contrary.
Thomas Fuller: It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that.
Yet there is erosion, Thomas. Dripping water (yes, it does still rain) will wear away a rock. Boredom is a great crowd thinner (and there is a lot of boredom abroad). Cold is a puzzlement when one should be roasting… but my money is mainly on boredom. AGW is losing its novelty.
“Conspiracy” does not require one central figure or entity giving everyone else marching orders. The existence of a conspiracy is established merely be demonstrating what you have written here. There are indeed a whole lot of people and organizations working together behind the scenes to present a narrative that is not true. Some of those working together are true believers. Some are charlatans working for a buck. Others have purely political motives. Some are various combinations.
But all that need be shown is that they coordinate their efforts with others behind the scenes to present a false narrative. Alarmist scientists coordinate the release of exaggerated findings with a media campaign joined by sympathetic journalists and editors. Politicians and investors coordinate to trumpet the “science” in an effort to pry cash from taxpayers to create profits for investors some of which become campaign contributions. NGOs and charities join in the hype to solicit contributions. Others use the hype to argue for more and more govt to “control” the problem identified in the exaggerated science.
The AGW lobby like to ridicule sceptics by scoffing about how ridiculous it is to think that a conspiracy could be cooked up between so many different players.
Well I think most sceptics, like myself, never believed that there ever was such a conspiracy.
It is more a band wagon.
Once a few prime movers got it rolling it turned out that there were enough unscrupulous, dishonest, gullible, easily led or sincere but impressionable people out there to ensure that the band wagon always grew.
Everyone one of them can see something in the narrative for themselves.
A research grant opportunity, a chance to sell some bit of technology, a way of gathering votes, a way of enforcing a few new laws or raising a bit of tax, a way of displaying environmental concern, a nice little business opportunity etc.
The only one who misses out every time is the tax payer who is expected to quietly stump up for research grants, wind power subsidies etc…
I am hoping that the long suffering tax payer one day gets the ability to bring the bandwagon to a sudden and unceremonious halt.
While there doesn’t need to be a conspiracy to explain what has been going on with the weather/enviromentalists (since weather=climate when it’s hot, weather when it’s not), there are people in all of those groups who have had training in radicalism. I suppose it could be a coincidence that these groups just happen to generally oppose free markets, and minimal state, but I doubt it. What I think is happening is that a rather small group of “radicals” have aimed at eliminating economic liberty, and per force, individual liberty. They don’t have to have meetings, the general idea is known, and by attacking separate pieces the effect is of disparate organizations.
The key is centrism, and opposition to anything which allows individuals to live their lives independently. More isn’t needed, other than a controlling mechanism, and CAGW is a perfect tool.
By embracing generally supported ideas, like we shouldn’t pollute our world, we shouldn’t turn the world into a garbage dump, they wander into other areas, not as readily accepted, were they first proposed, but when they follow just a little farther out, a sufficient number of followers will follow. Pretty soon you get PETA, Greenpeace, and his Goreness.
[Note to all – the word ‘conspiracy’ triggers the spam filter and it may take some time for such comments to be liberated. Promotion of conspiracy theories is generally not condoned on this blog ~jove, mod (not meaning to pick on this comment at all – you make some excellent points)]
But you should also put away the idea that this is some centrally directed conspiracy with an aim of global government.
===========================================
Let’s see
You must have a different UN than the rest of us…………
Tom, These organizations know the “chain of command” in the media, just like you do. They know how to work it, just like you described. Knowing what the media wants to report and feeding it to them that way, is still a “well-coordinated campaign”.
Of course the UN wants global government, and the UN wants to run it.
If not, there is no reason to even have the UN.
I think the fundamental problem here is that we as a species are wholly unprepared for the challenges of living in a surplus society, where there are few – if any – real threats to ourselves. We respond much stronger to alarm than to good news, which makes perfect sense as a survival mechanism, and we distrust the status quo, which perhaps deceptively urges us to sit back and enjoy, while unknown perils may be lurking around the corner.
Seen in this light, Climate Change is a perfect cause to rally our instinct to fight for survival. The enemy is the surplus society itself, a complex enough enemy that it can be trusted to lunge back at us, no matter how many heads we cut off.
Who am I to say that they’re wrong. The “beauty” of it, though, is that they can afford to be wrong a countless number of times, yet still be right. It is a fundamental belief, backed up by historical precedence. End of Days has always attracted followers, and even the staunchest skeptics must concede that, eventually, some turn of events will prove them right, an Earth as we know it will be no more.
Which also sheds light on Nissan’s polar bear ad:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/10/unbearably-stupid-polar-bear-advertising/
Given enough people in all the right places who happen to believe in “The Cause”, such as ad agencies, they start to believe that there’s a powerful movement that they latch onto which they believe will further their own objectives. In this case, selling a low carbon emission car. They’re so into this belief system that they can’t see the tackiness of it.
Keith Battye says:
September 13, 2010 at 5:33 am
The ongoing and unrelenting pro AGW propaganda that pours out of the MSM is quite astonishing, only slightly more astonishing than the paucity of “skeptical” material in that same media. Obviously money plays it’s part but I think much more is to be laid at the feet of classical and liberal arts education which seems to send a good portion of it’s human output into the “meedja”. These are generally people who have stuck religiously to their student socialist leanings and now see themselves as being part of the team that will save the world from the nasty humans.
I think your last bit (“nasty humans”) captures at least part of it. There is a tendency among the press to follow the old saw “If it bleeds, it leads”. Thus, a heading of “we’re all gonna die!” will always win out over “Everything A-OK!” This, in turn, is fed by (and feeds into) an apparent guilt manifestation among some people whereby, since life is pretty good for most people (relatively speaking), we must be setting ourselves up for a fall of biblical proportions. Combine this with the money that is made available to researchers to study this threat, whereby the researchers may be subconsciously pressured to keep finding out “It’s worse than we thought!” to keep the grants flowing. Before you know it, you have a nice little feedback loop reinforcing the “Armageddon Now” theme. Of course, the lack of any actual catastrophes to date doesn’t stop them – they just blame natural phenomena on CAGW and a scientifically-illiterate mainstream press gobbles it up.
Exactly. It doesn’t take an X-Files style conspiracy to stampede a herd ready to run somewhere and just needing a nudge in the right direction.
“This is a really tough time for these people. They staked a lot on getting a global agreement in Copenhagen, and it’s a real blow to them (and their egos) that it didn’t happen. Losing the US cap and trade battle was equally damaging to them. But taken as a very large group, they have money, organisation and a lot of professional skill.
It will take more than Climategate or the Hockey Stick to beat them. Readers of Watt’s Up With That should be aware of that.”
Thomas it matters not one iota what resources this “very large group” has. Nor does it matter that the good work of Anthony, Steve McIntyre, and the other sceptical and luke warmer bloggers will continue to show this “very large groups” propaganda for what it is, propaganda. At the end of the day the final arbiter will be mother nature herself.
Mr Fuller,
As someone who has many years of experience in investigating and tracking groups, their operations and sources of support, I can say that there are, in fact, global governance conspiracies.
The central network for dissemination of this is the World Federalist Society, a group backed by the UN to promote World Government to the masses, especially in the US and Europe. I’ve attended a number of their meetings to learn what they are about (there is a chapter near me in Hanover, NH that is led by various Dartmouth alumni and retired UN and US officials).
As an example, the World Biosphere Preserve program, which is publicly touted as a program to recognise and protect the worlds “special places” and ecosystems is part of a program here in the US by various green NGO’s to engineer the “donation” of vast tracts of private wilderness (usually owned by paper/logging companies, mining concerns, etc) to the US government or to the groups own tax-free charitable corporations (which removes the land from local and state tax rolls, costing many rural communities large amounts of needed property tax revenue). If donated to the US government, it is usually done with a deal that the NGO (usually groups like the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, etc) has a 999 year contract to “manage” the land for the government.
Any locally owned hunting cabins with leases on the land are summarily nixed by the groups. The groups are then able to seize the private cabins and then start renting them out to well heeled members for thousands of dollars a night in “donations”.
The land is then declared a UN World Biosphere Preserve. This gives the UN, under treaty, shared allodial title to the land so the UN can count the Preserve lands as UN assets, much as the US government counts Federal wilderness, forests, and National Park lands as assets of the US government that it uses to collateralize money it borrows to cover its huge budget deficits and its vast welfare and war machine. This is also the reason the UN is slowly building up its assets in the Biosphere Preserve program, for the same reason they sought, several years ago, to do a deal with the World Wildlife Federation to declare all seamounts in international waters to be World Biosphere Preserves under the sovereign control of the WWF, and giving the WWF authority to tax fishing operations in those areas, to share those tax revenues with the UN. Having declarable assets and tax revenues independent of the donations of member nations (donations which historically have been paid for mostly by the US and allow the US to keep the UN on something of a short leash), gives the UN the ability to operate independently of the will of its donor states and to borrow large amounts of capital with which to finance things like, say, large military forces under UN control, independent of the military commands of UN member states.
Should the UN also be able to tax things like carbon emissions and currency trading, as they have recently proposed, this would give the UN additional tax revenue with which to pay interest on debt accrued in pursuit of building its own military forces.
“[Major media campaigns] ignore IPCC scientists so they could insist that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.”
I was under the impression that this claim was made by the scientists in the IPCC report. These facts were reiterated on numerous occasions by Rajendra Pauchari.
Here is the IPCC’s statement on the matter.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf
Unless I have greatly misunderstood what you have said, it seems completely incorrect to say that the media pushed these errors in the face of IPCC protest.