Michael Mann on “Inside Story”

Tom Nelson points out that Michael Mann’s sabbatical gives him time to take a break from his sober, objective, apolitical, just-the-facts, hard-science-only work to discuss the environmentalist movement on:

Seems rather ho-hum until you look up what network “Inside Story” is on:

Great, maybe after appearing on Al Jazeera, he’ll be inspired to some sort of Hockey Stick Jihad. Oh, wait.

He seems desperate to me.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/04/201242462010275243.html

About these ads
This entry was posted in Michael E. Mann, Politics, Satire and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Michael Mann on “Inside Story”

  1. Brad says:

    Al Jazeera English actually turns out to be the best way to find out about the Middle East and get a view of the United States from the outside. Very good journalism, actually.

  2. Brad says:

    My defense of Al Jazeera is not a defense of MAnn, who represents a much lower standfard of ethics.

  3. omnologos says:

    Anthony – this post of yours is a miss. As shown as the time of Libya, AJ is very much ‘Western mainstream’ at the moment.

  4. HR says:

    The author here doesn’t like foreign journalists?
    A little crude and unnecessary.

    REPLY: Likewise, painting a broad brush to “all” foreign journalists seems a bit crude and unnecessary, but then again you live in a bubble of academia, like Mann. So, such generalizations are expected. I think Al Jazeera has an agenda, and they wear it on their sleeve. I don’t watch it for that reason. The fact that Mann would appear on it seems desperate. – Anthony

  5. Brad says:

    Onologos-

    They are more mainstream than some – but less so than the BBC, and the BBC less so than the very myopic U.S. press – and their coverage of Egypt and Libya was pretty amzingly good stuff.

  6. RobRoy says:

    Mann needs a misanthropic audience. With Al Jazeera ,he has an audience of Western civilization haters.
    Close enough.

  7. Robert Barry says:

    Good journalism doesn’t hide bad science.

  8. Doug Proctor says:

    I’ve watched AJ in the Middle East. It’s good, better than the BBC, but actually staffed with ex-BBC (or BBC-like) people. But I understand your drift: the American government considered AJ to be a pro-terrorist organization when it was first set up. It offers a view that is “balanced”, in that it says/suggests that American interests may not be either pure or in the interests of the Middle East, except for the Israelis, of course. (Fancy that!) So it is still “anti-us”.

    This is a political mistake by one who should have known better. Of course, Strong and Hansen and others are politically to the left of left (the totalitarian part, not the I”ll-share-my-money-with-others, Marxist part). So maybe the anti-us is an expression of their anti-human, anti-capitalist, anti-Western-consumerist beliefs.

    Love it. Mann on AJ. Hansen likes the Chinese. What’s next: Strong relocates to Moscow and Schmidt, to Germany? And Al, well, he goes to the Maldives, where there are no taxes and his mansion IS an island?

  9. davidmhoffer says:

    I’ll believe that Al Jazeera has no bias or agenda when Michael Mann announced that the hockey stick was just a prank.

  10. Al Jazeera is bar none the best news channel if you’re interested in the workings of “non-Western” countries. I’ve not seen any bias from them that I haven’t seen much worse from other news organizations.

    “Don’t shoot the messenger” and all that.

  11. philjourdan says:

    Al Jazeera is a good news source because:

    #1 – You know their bias.
    #2 – They admit it.

    So you know why they are doing the piece. It is refreshing to see a news outlet proudly proclaim their bias. It gives the viewer the information they need to take the stories with a grain of salt.

  12. Rms says:

    I often watch AJ along with RT while in hotels. Both appear to be very professional and competent and often appear to be a better source of quality international news than as reported by CNN, BBC, etc, don’t assume.

  13. Petrossa says:

    The BBC is as biased as they come, so Al-Jazeera being staffed by ex-BBC staff is not exactly a comforting thought.

  14. DirkH says:

    wikipedia, BTW, has largely memory-holed the Ira Einhorn/Earth Day connection, only some remnants in the German wikipedia. I don’t give a hint. You know who you are, you’ll find it.

  15. Alec Rawls says:

    Anybody who thinks Al Jazeera is “Western mainstream” is very confused. Of course they are going to give glowing coverage to any “Arab Spring” uprising, which movements are bringing al Qaeda to power all across the middle east. Al Jazeera is rabidly pro-Islamist, or Islamic supremacist. In other words, they are orthodox, and orthodox Islam demands the conquest of all non-Muslims. Osama bin Laden was a perfectly orthodox Wahhabist (the official Saudi state interpretation of Islam). Al Jazeera daily cheerleads the ascention of this ideology across the Islamic world.

  16. bladeshearer says:

    I only wish the US mainstream media were as good as al Jazeera. It is a better source for Mideast news and a wider view of world news than our domestic journalists. To bypass the agenda-driven pap peddled on network TV every morning, I check al Jazeera English daily. No, they’re neither perfect nor unbiased – but they’re better than most.

  17. Brad says:

    And they seem to hire folks based on knowledge, and not on how blond their hair is or how much they work out.

  18. davidmhoffer says:

    philjourdan says:
    April 24, 2012 at 9:29 am
    Al Jazeera is a good news source because:
    #1 – You know their bias.
    #2 – They admit it.
    >>>>>>>>>

    A murderer is a good person provided that they admit it?
    Sorry, but wrong is wrong. A good news source has no bias. Does scu exist? Rarely. Is that an excuse to allow a news source off the hook in regard to their reporting because their bias is known and they admit it?

    Hardly.
    What if their bias was against philjourdan, they advocated philjourdan be executed because his name is philjourdan, would that be OK if they admitted it?

    Bias is wrong, period. It matters not what they admit or how bad it is elsewhere.

  19. Agree on AlJ. They are, as a rule less biased than their Western counterparts… Especially the BBC. they are HORRIBLE! And in this case, it’s AJ’s association with Michael Mann that is more damaging, not the other way around.

  20. more soylent green! says:

    Troed Sångberg says:
    April 24, 2012 at 9:21 am
    Al Jazeera is bar none the best news channel if you’re interested in the workings of “non-Western” countries. I’ve not seen any bias from them that I haven’t seen much worse from other news organizations.

    “Don’t shoot the messenger” and all that.

    I swear, every time I watch ABC World News it has at least one story on climate change, with no skeptical or dissenting opinions offered. No balance and no fact checking, either.

    I have to agree, our media is no better. Remember the flag pin controversy after 9-11? Why wouldn’t a member of the American media support the USA in the war on terror? Do they believe they will be allowed freedom of the press if Al Qaeda wins?

  21. DirkH says:

    Rms says:
    April 24, 2012 at 9:40 am
    “I often watch AJ along with RT while in hotels. Both appear to be very professional and competent and often appear to be a better source of quality international news than as reported by CNN, BBC, etc, don’t assume.”

    RT? Oh please. You’re an OWSer, is that it?

  22. HR says:

    Antony,
    So you stand by “Hockey Stick Jihad”? Jihad, that’s Al Jazeeras agenda? Looks more like generalized Muslim bashing by you rather than some investigation of AJ’s agenda.

    REPLY: Typical academic, misses the humor. Note the tag -“satire”. But please, be as upset as you wish.

    I will say though Peter, that your organization, to its credit, doesn’t seem to have global warming on it’s agenda that I can find. – Anthony

  23. REPLY: Likewise, painting a broad brush to “all” foreign journalists seems a bit crude and unnecessary, but then again you like in a bubble of academia, like Mann. So, such generalizations are expected. I think Al Jazeera has an agenda, and they wear it on their sleeve. I don’t watch it for that reason. The fact that Mann would appear on it seems desperate. – Anthony

    Anthony – I’ve been on WUWT since pretty much the beginning and have had few reasons to criticize something you’ve written. But I have to challenge you here. Isn’t this attitude, “I don’t have to watch it – or read it – because I already know what the POV is” EXACTLY the type of attitude and mind set we are ultimately fighting against? I mean, we were all rightly very critical of Peter Glieck as it was obvious he hadn’t bothered to read Donna LaFramboise’s book because he already “knew” what was in it? I would recommend watching AJ for a couple of weeks and then compare the reality of the content to your current POV of it. Sure, it’s not a perfect news source. But it is from a different angle. As both a skeptic and former media major, I appreciate that.

    REPLY: You forget that I’m a TV Radio journalist, and I’ve spent more time in satellite feed control rooms at my TV station than I care to admit. I’ve watched hours and hours of Al-J, particularly after 9/11, but also recently as our radio station also has several satellite feeds running. So please don’t paint me with “I don’t have to watch it – or read it” when you have absolutely zero idea of my actual experience with it. My experience with it formed my opinion, so I don’t choose to watch it anymore if I can help it. – Anthony

  24. Smokey says:

    HR,

    Haven’t you noticed? It is the Muslims who do the bashing. Among other things.

  25. hro001 says:

    Setting aside the known primary agenda of AJE, I tried to watch this video wearing my “totally new to this issue” hat. Mann stuck to his usual big oil funded myth and martyrdom pose – as well as projecting his customary supercilious attitude (although he’s injected a new twist: “we can have a ‘good faith’ debate about solutions”).

    AEI’s Kenneth Green, IMHO, was the most credible of the three participants. I don’t know what audience share AJE (or this particular program) might have, but one can hope that Green’s view prevails.

    Another bright spot in the program was the observation that this year, Earth Day in the US seemed to have a dearth of participants! Perhaps the dots of the doomsters’ hype are being connected by the public in ways that leave the doomsters feeling somewhat gloomy ;-)

  26. RobB says:

    Al Jazeera is by far the best of the mainstream news channels. It actually tends to concentrate on just what is going on without particularly having much agenda behind everything. Just because it is staffed mainly by ex BBC journalists isn’t enough of a reason to dislike the channel.

  27. omnologos says:

    AJ for example has been instrumental in fabricating stories about bombed civilians in Libya, the same stories that have “helped” coalesce many Governments in accepting the ouster of Qaddafi.

    I suspect their “agenda” is the Government’s, in their case the state of Qatar. I cannot imagine anything more remote from al-Qaeda than that. AJ has ruthlessly campaigned for “unbiased Arab news” at its beginning, then quickly hired old Western hands and became just another of the usual voices.

    Little surprise in them sticking to climate orthodoxy. This is not a dark chapter in Mann’s life, rather the n-th effort by AJ to tell the world: “look, we’re like you really”.

    Follow Qatar in the news to see what else they’re up with (a lot) thanks to their money and relative stability (a lot).

  28. bladeshearer says:

    davidmhoffer says: “A good news source has no bias.”

    Perhaps he believes in the Tooth Fairy, too. ;-) As a graduate of the world’s premier journalism school and a lifelong writer, I can assure davidmhoffer that a news source with no bias is a myth. At least al Jazeera bothered to include one skeptic on their 3-person panel; that’s far better than most US media outlets would do. And they clearly showed the dismal Earth Day turnout in DC, something again screened out by most of America’s MSM.

    There’s a tendency among uninformed Americans to imagine modern Islamism as an undifferentiated bloc, off which al Qaeda is a homogeneous chip. In fact, there are many sharp divisions: al Qaeda is a sworn enemy of Shiism, Hezbollah and the Saudi government. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda parted company decades ago. Shias and Sunnis tend to detest each other. There are many shades of opinion in the Muslim world, and lumping them all together as “terrorists” is just plain ignorant.

    The Muslim world is here to stay, and it is important that we learn to live with it. Al Jazeera helps.

  29. Chilli says:

    I found Al Jazeera to be pretty fair and balanced. Certainly much better than the BBC. They tend to stick to reporting the facts without spinning everything to serve a left-wing agenda. Needless to say one should always wear ones sceptical hat when listening to their reports on Israel.

  30. REPLY: You forget that I’m a TV Radio journalist, and I’ve spent more time in satellite feed control rooms at my TV station than I care to admit. I’ve watched hours and hours of Al-J, particularly after 9/11, but also recently as our radio station also has several satellite feeds running. So please don’t paint me with “I don’t have to watch it – or read it” when you have absolutely zero idea of my actual experience with it. My experience with it formed my opinion, so I don’t choose to watch it anymore if I can help it. – Anthony

    Point taken. The first reply, at least to me, seemed to suggest you hadn’t watched it recently. I guess I encounter so much of the “I don’t don’t need to see it” attitude that I’m probably over-sensitive to that idea. I formally retract my criticism.

    Though I didn’t work in the field, I hold a BA in Telecomunications – Radio, TV, Film production. For the most part, pretty much ALL broadcast news is crap! There is such a rush to be first with everything that no one bothers to take the time to gather background info before presenting a story. When they do add details, it’s not driven by the importance of the detail to the situation, but rather of the opinion and biases of the reporters presenting the story. The aftermath of the Japanese tsunami and Fukushima were a prime example. A couple of weeks into the Fukushima drama, CNN did a “Could It Happen Here?” story on the San Onofre nuclear power plant in Southern California. Wolf Blitzer was interviewing a nuclear power plant specialist via video link, asking about the risk to that plant to earthquakes. The specialist, who I’ll call San Onofre Guy, was telling Wolf that the plant was engineered to withstand at least a 7.0 directly under the plant. (I blogged this btw)

    Then, Wolf automatically brings up the dreaded SAN ANDREAS FAULT!!!!

    OH NO!!!!

    San Onofre guy says that is not a threat and…

    “But the San Andreas can produce a quake as big as the one we just witnessed in Sendai!” Blitzer interrupts.

    San Onofre guy tries to explain that the San Andreas fault is many miles away, and also that they don’t build the reactors to Richter scale standards, but to Peak Ground Acceleration, measured in g’s. If the San Andreas does produce a quake of the same size, because of its distance from the plant, the motion transmitted to the reactors would be less severe than that of the closer fault.

    Blitzer, apparently being an East Coast Guy and not at all familiar with either the location of the San Andreas fault, the location of it relative to the San Onofre plant, or anything having to do with seismology besides the Richter scale, asks the S.O. guy to clarify, because well…. we ALL KNOW the San Andreas produces Earthquakes as large as the one in Japan.

    San Onofre guy tries to explain it to Wolf again, apparently to no avail. After the interview ends and Blitzer prepares to segue to the next story, he suggests that the S.O. guy was trying to spin him….

    It was a disgusting interview. For Wolf Blitzer to suggest the guy was spinning when it was Wolfs own lack of knowledge on the subject he was supposed to be reporting on… It just pissed me off! It’s as if he did absolutely NO RESEARCH on the topic, and just led with his gut.

    The recent Trayvon Martin thing was exactly the same. Everyone was reporting this and that, before really researching and gathering some real details before reporting the story. TV journalism is, for the most part, in my opinion not very well done. There is some good stuff out there, and even Blitzer or the BBC can do a good job sometimes. But I don’t have much confidence that what I hear from them is the last or most accurate word. I take it all with a pretty large grain of salt.

    PS. I am a devoted listener to “The Skeptics Guide To The Universe”. It is a very good skeptics podcast… EXCEPT where AGW is involved. The IPCC is gospel and can not be wrong. Period. They bought the explanations and dodgings of the Climategate scientists hook, line, and sinker. They dutifully reported on the first half of the Heartland Institute kerfuffle in March, using all the bullet point outlined in the master memo. But when the story evolved into “Fakegate”……

    Silence.

    I often want to e-mail things to them on the subject of global warming, but I know they will ignore it. They dismiss any criticism, even if it has absolute validity, as “denialist propaganda”. If you’re not all in, you’re not in at all.

    On the other hand

  31. wsbriggs says:

    I prefer a news source that is biased, but covers the news, to one that just ignores what’s happening when it doesn’t fit what their biases. A decade ago the New York Times fit that description, but no longer.

    In the old days (ask Willis when that was) you could find the teletype room at a newspaper and read dispatches right off the teletype before the editor got to them. It was fascinating how stories changed from what was posted, to what was printed. In my case, I could read the teletypes: Depeche France, Reuters, AP, UPI, Deutche Depeche Agentur, and then the newspapers: Frankfurter Allgemeine, Neue Zuercher Zeitung, Le Figaro, Financial Times, and the Paris Herald Tribune. One can only imagine the twists and turns the stories took.

    Most of all, I prefer a news source that reports what’s happening without editing, but I’ve experienced only one news source that did that in my entire life. I fear that that source is slipping into the contaminated trough as well.

    In sum, you can rarely believe in what you read.

  32. Snotrocket says:

    davidmhoffer says: April 24, 2012 at 9:14 am

    “I’ll believe that Al Jazeera has no bias or agenda when Michael Mann announced that the hockey stick was just a prank.”

    When I first read this, David, I saw ‘plank’! I think it works better that way. :)

  33. michaelspj says:

    I have done many interviews on AJ English. I have never been interrupted by a pushy host and have always been allowed to make my points. Unlike CNN and the dinosaur media, AJ never goes ad hominem–at least on climate change.

    If you ask anyone who has interviewed with them, you are likely to hear that they in fact, while not as opulent, are much classier and professional than CNN.

  34. davidmhoffer says:

    bladeshearer says:
    April 24, 2012 at 11:59 am
    davidmhoffer says: “A good news source has no bias.”
    Perhaps he believes in the Tooth Fairy, too. ;-)
    >>>>>>

    No, I do not. As for you, your belief system seems to be that unbiased reporting is extremely hard to do, perhaps impossible, so there’s no need to try and obvious bias ought to be excused. Is that the sort of drivel they taught you in this vaunted school you graduated from? That excellence is hard to achieve so why bother to try?

    And don’t lecture me about Islam and the differences between the factions. I did not say a single word about Islam, that was all you.

  35. more soylent green! says:

    Doesn’t “Big Oil” fund Al Jeezera? The biggest oil companies are stated-owned corporations and many of those are in the Middle East and Islamic countries. Where do OPEC states get their money? For many, oil is the only source of revenue.

  36. IAmDigitap says:

    It’s stunning that some of the people of the world, actually believe a bunch of white men in white coats, who want the brown people to STERILIZE THEMSELVES for THEIR good, when those very men, have been found not even able to tell Mike Mann’s worthless scrawls weren’t math;

    AND, those SAME loons, SIMULTANEOUSLY THINK, that, a TREE

    is a treemometer with a thermometer built in, along with a time machine to the past.

    It is downright scary when you think of how eagerly these very me would be rejoicing when third world countries’ dictators, took funds to ‘gently, equally’ apply ‘restricted population’ programs: force the opposing political parties//tribes to be STERILIZED.

    The fact the tropospheric hotspot hasn’t ever appeared? These guys simply refuse to admit it shot Magic Gas down from the beginning, as does infrared astronomy’s discovery there’s LESS atmospheric infrared today than fifteen years ago.

    These people will do their best to make the biggest dent in news they can, because after all: it’s not their kids who’ll see their parents take some trinkets to bring the family to the ‘clinic’ and ‘free them from worry over carbon sin’ ever again.

    They’re just hideous and if you think I’m exaggerating I suggest you cruise the warmer sites and scope how many of them BLATANTLY admit: they wanna sterilize the ‘extra’ people.

  37. 20.000.000 Americans took part on the first Earth Day. I make that roughly 330,000,000 Americans who were indifferent to the fact that it it was Earth Day. That’s 94%, to the nearest whole number. Does that count as a consensus?

  38. Bruce Cobb says:

    He’s a Mann on a mission. Unfortunately for him, AJ allowed Ken Green to talk, pretty much demolishing Mann’s message. Maybe Mann could try North Korea. They’d probably love his anti-American views.

  39. Billy says:

    The moment that Mr Mann opened his mouth about deniers and the fossil fuel industry he lost all credibility. Deniers are not against science. They believe that academics have sold out and abandoned scientific method.

  40. DirkH says:

    For the people who labeled RT “professional” or “a news source”…
    You know it gets ugly when they eat their own…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/17/world-tomorrow-julian-assange-wikileaks
    Guardian calls Assange a “useful idiot” for doing fawning interview with Hezbollah top honcho on RT…

  41. Ironargonaut says:

    AJ -US missile misses Al-queada and hits wrong house civilians are “murdered”. Even though in same article local witness states they must have been aiming for house full of Al-queada across street.
    AJ -Al-queada car bomb blows up Iraq market and clvilians are “killed”
    Not biased my lilly white …
    My Arab friends say the Arab version does not equal English version of print articles. Keep that in mind. What English readers see is watered down.
    Can get some information that you don’t find elsewhere and some articles are not anti-US. But, Anthony is correct. If you look at the western guest authors, they are almost exclusively whack jobs and anti-west/capitalist. AJ likes to use westerners who say the western Gov’ts are bad.

  42. garymount says:

    grumpyoldmanuk says:

    April 24, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    20.000.000 Americans took part on the first Earth Day. I make that roughly 330,000,000 Americans who were indifferent to the fact that it it was Earth Day.
    ———
    The total population of the US on the first Earth Day, according to the census, was 203,392,031 for that year.

  43. papiertigre says:

    We seem to be getting bogged down in the AL Jazeera is this or that. Missing the point.

    The point I take away from this is Prof Hockeypants will pony up to the mic of anybody whose willing to stomach his “I’m a victim” speal. He is being haphazard and reckless. Sloppy. His ego is over riding caution. Is there anybody he wouldn’t do an interview with at this point? Right how he is trying to swamp all the bad news with his own “poor pitiful me” rebutal, hoping that most people won’t see the original.

    Some creative folks might use this against him. Are there not media outlets whose own reputation is so tarnished that an interview of Mike by them might tend to sully stick boy?

  44. papiertigre says:

    Is there a way we could facilitate their meeting?

  45. Bladeshearer…What he said!

  46. Lew Skannen says:

    As the great Mr Gump might have said – Desperate is as desperate does.

  47. _Jim says:

    After having watched that interview a couple times, all I can say is: “Poor deluded little Mann.”

    He really, really believes this ‘stuff’ re: CAGW.

    100% invested.

    Owns __no__ other stock whatsoever …

    .

  48. bladeshearer says:

    davidmhoffer: I apologize for not making it clear that only my first paragraph referred to your claim that “a good news source has no bias.”

    Every news source has a bias. It begins with the publisher’s choice of what to cover, then the reporter’s choice of what to report, then the editor’s choice of what to publish or broadcast. Bias even enters into the consumer’s choice of which channel to watch or publication to read. Biased news is like global warming – a natural fact that cannot be denied, but which becomes less dangerous if we understand it. Failing to recognize the bias in our own chosen media simply feeds ignorance.

    My comment on the tendency of Americans to see political Islamism as a terrorist monolith was a general observation. We claim we believe in democracy, but object to the democratic choice of Hamas by Palestinians in Gaza, or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – yet neither of those entities is a friend of al Qaeda. Modern Islamism is a very complex subject, and we would do well to learn more about it.

  49. berniel says:

    In a surprising way this post gives evidence of a transformation in the readership of this blog. I remember in 2008-9 the overwhelming feeling of being deep in the realm of conservative america. For an old soft hippie leftie from the antipodes, it was a baptism of fire into the US hard right. Frankly it was scary. What it Lucy Skywalker? or someone bloody gutsy..they would say something slightly sympathetic to a soft leftie view of foreign policy only to be pounced on. When it happened to me too I was so surprised. I was shocked by the aggression of some of the regular readers whose views on AGW I supported.

    Now will you look at the responses above! For those of you who feel quiet comfortable in the realm of the US right, there is one comfort in this transformation — there is clear evidence that in this controversy you are winning over the foreigner who see the world differently, and you are winning the lefties too.

  50. HR says:

    Antony,

    It doesn’t matter how much you abuse the privilege of having my email address to reveal details about me this post is still a fail.

    And just for your info you’re assuming to know too much about me just from my email address. Yes the address is from a non-profit medical research institute but for the past 15 years I’ve only ever worked for stockmarket-listed companies.The present model in the pharmaceutical industry is to take ‘academic research’ and spin off companies with venture capital money and private investment, that’s were I sit in small spin-off biotech. So no ‘academic bubble’ for me unfortunately, the job disappears when the investor money dries up. The job even disappears when you’re successful and the products and patents get gobbled up by pharma giants. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

    From what I know of academic medical research there are no free rides. It encourages intelligent and enthusiastic young scientists to work hard for relatively poor pay and then rewards most of them by spitting them out at the mid-career stage. Only a very small number of people actually make a life long career in academic science, most of the people I know or knew in science had to have a plan B. The ‘academic bubble’ is an anachronism, long past. But I guess it’s such a seductive image for disgruntled tax-payers that it’s hard to let go.

    REPLY: Abuse the privilege? Gosh, next time I’ll just address you as some off color title rather than your name, and not offer praise to your organization for not having an AGW bent, which they could easily do. Well good to hear your .edu doesn’t make you an academic, but you still missed the satire….and it doesn’t matter how much you dislike the fact that I don’t like what Mann or Al Jazeera does, IMO they are still both FAIL. BTW its Anthony, with an h, you keep misspelling it. I’m told that lack of attention to detail will get you in trouble in medical research. – Anthony

  51. davidmhoffer says:

    bladeshearer;

    I’ve seen apologists for a lot of things, but I never thought I would see an apologist for biased reporting. But at days end, you are correct. The biased reporters with an agenda to outnumber the reporters who strive for excellence that there remains little hope for excellence and objectivity. Which is why the mainstream media is in steady decline and being replaced by active debate of the issues in the blogosphere. Newsprint is all but dead, TV is close behind. Radio is hanging on but only because of “talk radio” which, while not the free for all of the blogosphere, still allows for some level of active debate rather than the pablum served up on TV and newsprint disguised as journalism.

    Your understanding of elections in places like Gaza is equally sad. Elections in which opposition newspapers are burned down, opposition television and radio stations forcefully shuttered, and opposition leaders thrown off of roof tops hardly constitutes any rational definition of democracy.

  52. Jeff Alberts says:

    grumpyoldmanuk says:
    April 24, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    20.000.000 Americans took part on the first Earth Day. I make that roughly 330,000,000 Americans who were indifferent to the fact that it it was Earth Day. That’s 94%, to the nearest whole number. Does that count as a consensus?

    Is that 20 with some weird precision? Or did you just mix separators?

  53. Brian H says:

    I gather that the English AJ service differs “radically” from the Arab-language broadcasts, which are far more forthright in their jihadism, and very inflammatory. But as a non-arabic-speaker, that’s hearsay, of course.

  54. Does anyone know what Mike Mann was doing in Vienna? I feel uneasy when he is around.

  55. Found out. It’s the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, where he got that “Oeschger”- Medal yesterday. Video is here http://www.cntv.at/EGU2012/index.php?modid=18&a=show&pid=182 At Min. 7:50 the twenty or so medalists are named and enter the stage and that’s it. Shakehands only, no speech or laudatio. So it’s not that a big thing.

  56. bladeshearer says:

    davidmhoffer says: Your understanding of elections in places like Gaza is equally sad. Elections in which opposition newspapers are burned down, opposition television and radio stations forcefully shuttered, and opposition leaders thrown off of roof tops hardly constitutes any rational definition of democracy.

    On January 25, 2006, elections were held for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). Final results show that Hamas won the election. The British Conservative head of the European Parliament’s monitoring team described the polls as “extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence”. From Wikipedia

  57. davidmhoffer says:

    bladeshearere;
    The British Conservative head of the European Parliament’s monitoring team described the polls as “extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence”.
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    right. the day if the poll there was no violence. so all the burning of opposition papers, forced shut down of opposition TV and radio stations, murder of opposition leadership prior to the election is OK and never affected the election?. Your bias is ugly, obvious, and your defense of bias in journalism is nothing more than giving youirself a free pass to excuse your own obvious bias.

  58. Some European says:

    Anthony, “I think Al Jazeera has an agenda, and they wear it on their sleeve. I don’t watch it for that reason.” May I conclude you stopped watching FOX News?

    REPLY: Actually I don’t watch Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, nor CBS/ABC/NBC and other sat news feeds (inlcuding Al-J) much anymore, and I used to be an avid watcher of TV news. They almost all have agendas of some kind. Now, I rely on the Internet almost 100% for my news. – Anthony

  59. philjourdan says:

    @davidmhoffer says: April 24, 2012 at 10:32 am

    David, you miss my point. I did not say they were “good”. I said they were a good “source”. I never said I agree with their editorial views, I merely said that you know what their agenda is since they do not keep it a secret. Knowing that, you can then cull the truth from their reports. This is in stark contrast with the MSM of America who lies about their agenda, attempts to hide their bias, and report opinion as news.

    @Some European says: April 25, 2012 at 4:01 am

    And for us “stupid” colonials, could you possibly educate us on the Fox Agenda? And provide specific examples?

  60. John Costigane says:

    I beg to disagree with the reaction to al-Jazeera. The debate gave equal time to the alarmist and skeptical sides. When has this happened in any of our western media?

    What I noticed most about the debate was that Mitt Romney has put forward a winning strategy by putting economic growth ahead of Mann’s policy aims, the latter delayed for ~15 years. In my opinion a very smart move: check-mate for alarm.

  61. bladeshearer says:

    davidmhoffer says: “so all the burning of opposition papers, forced shut down of opposition TV and radio stations, murder of opposition leadership prior to the election is OK and never affected the election?

    In that election, Hamas was the opposition. A better news source might help you get your facts straight.

  62. davidmhoffer says:

    bladeshearer;
    In that election, Hamas was the opposition. A better news source might help you get your facts straight.>>>>>

    Wow. You want to mince words? Fine. Newspapers opposed to Hamas were burned down. TV and radio stations opposed to Hamas were shut dfown by armed thugs on orders from Hamas. Politicians who were publicly opposed to Hamas were murdered by being thrown from roof tops. But the day of the poll itself there was little or no violence.

    I have my facts straight. Your bias is astounding and the attempt to confuse the issue by substituting the user of the term “opposition” to mean “official opposition of the current government” when it was clear to anyone who read what I wrote that the intent of my use of the word “opposition” was to mean “opposition to Hamas”.

    So, you’ve tried to ignore murder and force being used against Hamas’ opponnents, when I pointed it out, you attempted to convince people it never happened by quoting from an official source in regard to events limited to the day of polling itself, and then had the audacity to try and confuse the matter by twisting my use of the word “opposition” to mean the opposite of its inent.

    You are a fine example of exactly what is wrong with today’s brand of journalism.

  63. davidmhoffer says:

    philjourdan says:
    April 25, 2012 at 4:33 am
    @davidmhoffer says: April 24, 2012 at 10:32 am
    David, you miss my point. I did not say they were “good”. I said they were a good “source”. I never said I agree with their editorial views, I merely said that you know what their agenda is since they do not keep it a secret. Knowing that, you can then cull the truth from their reports>>>>

    1. You THINK you know their agenda.You THINK that you are smart enough to discern the facts from their biased reporting. Their agenda is EXTREMELY sophisticated and not nearly so straight forward as some would think.

    2. By supporting them in the fashion that you do, citing them as a good “source” you increase their credibility, their revenue, their audience. Congrats. They’ve suckered your into supporting them so that they can broadcast their agenda to even more people.

  64. Frank K. says:

    HR whines:

    “From what I know of academic medical research there are no free rides. It encourages intelligent and enthusiastic young scientists to work hard for relatively poor pay and then rewards most of them by spitting them out at the mid-career stage. Only a very small number of people actually make a life long career in academic science, most of the people I know or knew in science had to have a plan B. The ‘academic bubble’ is an anachronism, long past. But I guess it’s such a seductive image for disgruntled tax-payers that it’s hard to let go.”

    Nobody forces anyone in this country (yet…) to pursue any particular career path. You made your choices, HR – don’t whine to us about it.

    BTW I have a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, and deliberately chose NOT to go into academia. It was a choice I made knowing full well that an academic career was much too uncertain to raise a family on.

    Finally…
    “The ‘academic bubble’ is an anachronism, long past. But I guess it’s such a seductive image for disgruntled tax-payers that it’s hard to let go.”

    As a father who is putting his oldest daughter through college, it’s not “disgruntled taxypayers” but “disgruntled parents paying outrageous tuitions”. Why do tuitions increase by double digit percentages every year? Academic bubble indeed…

  65. bladeshearer says:

    davidmhoffer: “burning of opposition papers, forced shut down of opposition TV and radio stations, murder of opposition leadership prior to the election

    Interesting allegations. Your source?

  66. TomT says:

    I took part in the first Earth Day. Well, I took part because it was force on me by my 7th grade teachers. That day I went home very worried. I told my father we had to stop pollution, because if we don’t there would be another ice age. I was repeating my teacher’s alarmism. My father, who had seen it all before, said “yeah and a few years ago they were worried about warming, and give it a few years and they will be worried about warming again, these things come and go.”

  67. David Hoffer wrote:

    Newspapers opposed to Hamas were burned down. TV and radio stations opposed to Hamas were shut dfown by armed thugs on orders from Hamas. Politicians who were publicly opposed to Hamas were murdered by being thrown from roof tops. But the day of the poll itself there was little or no violence.

    Not that I doubt you, but being a skeptic, what is the source of that info? I always like links to info like that. It sounds right, but it’s nice to be able to verify.

  68. philjourdan says:

    @davidmhoffer says: April 25, 2012 at 6:41 am

    I doubt my reading some articles on their web site is going to bring them any money. The ads that pop up? I know not to patronize them.

    I understand your contempt for them, but think you anger is misplaced. I do not read them for opinion. I read them for information on an area of the world that we get only lies from in the normal press.

    You need to trust your own judgement more

  69. davidmhoffer says:

    re request for sources:

    I follow events in the middle east on a daily basis, and from multiple news sources (yes, even AJ). So, my assertions about newspapers being burnt down, opposition leaders being thrown from roof tops, and so on are from memory. Links to same regarding events leading up to an election that was held over half a decade ago? Sorry, not handy.

    But these things were not a secret at the time, they were widely reported by multiple media sources, though they hardly made the “front page” in most media.

  70. Resourceguy says:

    I get it now. Mike Mann is the John Edwards of climate science. Stay on point with the catch phrases and rake in the money from deep pockets that don’t think past those catch phrases.

  71. bladeshearer says:

    davidmhoffer says: “…my assertions about newspapers being burnt down, opposition leaders being thrown from roof tops, and so on are from memory.”

    Sounds like Phil Jones’ “the dog ate my homework” response to data requests. In fact, it’s easy to find online reports on the 2006 Palestinian election won by Hamas. Here are just a few:

    Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said in a statement that the Palestinian people had “voted democratically and peacefully.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600372.html

    “We drove to Ramallah to meet with the leaders of the Central Election Commission, one of the most honest and effective I have ever known…It seemed obvious to us and other observers that the election was orderly and peaceful and that there was a clear preference for Hamas candidates even in historically strong Fatah communities.” Jimmy Carter. http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc2287.html

    No mentions of newspapers burnt, radio/TV shut down or opposition leaders murdered, etc. I welcome anyone to find and post credible reports of Hamas violence leading up to the January 2006 election.

  72. davidmhoffer says:

    you’ve already made up your mind bladeshearer. your bias on the matter is clear, and I’m not about to start googling for articles that are drowned out in the long lists of articles on the elections themselves on which there were many times as much written, much of it biased reporting attempting to paint the elections in Gaza ad democratic. They are as bbiased a set of reporting as one finds about global warming in the mainstream media.

    I suggest also if you want to bother to actually educate yourself instead of making snide comments about dogs and homework that you also take a look at what happened AFTER the election. The violence got worse, much worse, and Fatah’s leadership was pretty myuch exterminated in Gaza. Those that survived fked to the west bank.

    Even if you could make the case that the election in 2005 was democratic, in the aftermath, Hamas made certain that they would never have to compete in an election again. Fatah has been eradicated in Gaza, there is no democratic oipposition, and there is no democracy.

    snipe away, I’m dropping this thread.

  73. Some European says:

    @Anthony, good on you! That makes at least two of us!

  74. markx says:

    Al Jazeera English: In my opinion, by far the best source of news available today, and far better than watching the appalling NBC or worse FOX. And better than BBC.

    Anywhere I can get it in Asia, this is the new channel I watch. Precise, interesting, varied, and has good interviews which are not all about the host trying to prove he is the biggest loudmouth and bully in the room.

    Biased? Sure! Just like every other channel! It is a news source, not the holy grail of truth and light. If you’re gonna watch and listen to the MSM you better be prapared to do some of your own interpretation.

  75. markx says:

    davidmhoffer says: April 25, 2012 at 9:06 am

    …re request for sources: I follow events in the middle east on a daily basis, and from multiple news sources….

    David, just a gentle reminder that ALL news sources should be considered biased.

  76. Brian H says:

    Anyone defending Hamas has his head up his Hamas.

  77. bladeshearer says:

    No one here is “defending” Hamas – it is a terrorist organization, and their murderous record speaks for itself. But that doesn’t justify manufacturing BS about the 2006 Palestinian election, which by all credible accounts was free and fair. Hamas’ clear victory was a political rebuff for the US, which had pumped millions of dollars into shoring up the corrupt and unpopular Fatah regime before the election – and subsidized Fatah’s resistance to the democratic outcome afterwards, which led to a bloody civil war.

  78. markx says:

    Brian H says: April 26, 2012 at 1:39 am
    Anyone defending Hamas has his head up his Hamas.

    Not necessarily so. Depends on your outlook on the world.

    In Gaza, the Palestinians (Hamas, as it happens) are in full control of civil administration and also policing. Their police can and do carry weapons. All foreign representatives, UN, Aid NGOs, must deal with Palestinian government representatives (Hamas, it so happens).
    All just like a real government.

    Meanwhile, in the West Bank, Palestinian police cannot carry weapons. They cannot intervene in a dispute between a Palestinian and an Israeli. They (or any other Palestinians) cannot enter Israeli enclaves in Palestinian areas. In many areas they cannot use or even cross Israeli access roads which slice up their community. In most areas all security is run by Israel, and in some areas civil administration is too.

    I reckon if I was a Palestinian, Hamas may look alright.

    Now, I admit I don’t know much about Hamas, only what I have read and heard in the press.
    But I do know a lot about the press, and know that everything I see and hear is part of someone’s program and propaganda, and I’m betting that Hamas don’t have quite as much international media clout as do the Israelis.

    I find it ironic that people who question the propaganda flood surging over them in the climate debate do not always similarly question other major issues.

Comments are closed.