Quote of the week – Myles Allen’s “failure to communicate”

Steve McIntyre writes at Climate Audit:

Bishop Hill links to a presentation by Myles Allen to a 2011 conference on Climategate, which like every other such handwringing introspection by climate “communicators”, notably failed to invite any of the major CRU critics – people who might actually have given them some insight into Climategate. In his presentation to climate communicators, Allen gave his own version of Hide the Decline. Allen showed the graphic below, sneering that the entire effect of Climategate was 0.02 deg C in the 1870s.


Figure 1. Allen in front of temperature history.

Needless to say, Allen’s graph has nothing to do with Hide the Decline and the Climategate dossier. Allen’s graph shows the CRUTEM temperature index from 1850, not the 1000 year reconstructions in which Hide the Decline occurred. CRUTEM was only mentioned a couple of times in the Climategate dossier.

Climategate was about the Hockey Stick, though this point was misunderstood by Sarah Palin and now, it seems, Myles Allen.

Full story here at Climate Audit: Myles Allen and a New Trick to Hide-the-Decline

============================================================

Watch the video of Myles Allen doing his best communications schtick here:

I’m sure our UK troll supreme Phil Clarke will bring his famous expert consultancy services to bear in comments to tell us how we’ve all misinterpreted this as he’s done in previous comments here. /sarc

About these ads

84 thoughts on “Quote of the week – Myles Allen’s “failure to communicate”

  1. Yeah but no but yeah but…….er……..that’s different…it’s all settled……(throws teddy in the corner).

  2. Climategate was about the Hockey Stick, though this point was misunderstood by Sarah Palin and now, it seems, Myles Allen.>>>>

    What makes you think that Myles Allen doesn’t understand it? Seems to me that he’s gone to great lengths to misdirect attention from the actual issue. One can hardly come to the conclusions that Myles Allen has if one has any familiarity at all with the emails in question. The logical conclusion is that either he prepared his presentation without bothering to read the emails in question in the first place (unlikely) or he read the emails and carefully constructed a narrative to misdirect the audience’s attention from what they actually said. I vote for the latter.

    I wouldn’t worry about Phil Clarke dropping in. He’s said several times in several threads that if it isn’t published in a journal, it isn’t credible. That being the case, Phil Clarke has already stipulated that in his opinion this presentation has no merit.

  3. davidmhoffer
    You are right, of course, Myles Allen realised what he was doing. This is a variation on the ploy of frightening the audience by using the rather more subtle one of sighing deeply, shaking your head sadly and pointing out the other side was regretfully mistaken and here’s the proof.

    ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
    H. L. Mencken’
    tonyb

  4. He talks a lot but says nothing. It also appears that he as used the warmists trick of turning up the heat in the room, because he appears to be perspiring heavily. One final comment; did he dress in the dark?

  5. Allen showed the graphic below, sneering that the entire effect of Climategate was 0.02 deg C in the 1870s.

    Again we see the same loose morals we saw in Gleick’s case. Climategate mails show a misbehaviour in science, Gleick misbehaved too. The point it is not how much the effect is. the problems are that these scientists cannot be trusted and the ones trying whitewash their wrongdoings cannot be trusted either. Their temperature records are not longer valid either.

    Have they corrected the “effect of Climategate in the 1980s?” Nope, they made a new dataset, harcrut4, just to prevent 1998 from being the hottest year of the record. These people have no ethics.

  6. Anthropogenic Global Warming – All deception, all the time, at all the levels.

    Perhaps the real problem is the abject failure of the media to point out these chronic and pervasive deceptions. And IMO this largely results from no one in the left-leaning media being prepared to believe the United Nations is running a gigantic scam.

  7. The sad thing is, according to Richard Lindzen’s bio, Allen was one of his PhD students. He must have skipped a lot of lectures.

  8. andrewmharding says:
    May 27, 2012 at 12:49 am
    He talks a lot but says nothing. It also appears that he as used the warmists trick of turning up the heat in the room, because he appears to be perspiring heavily.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    My guess is that this is a side effect of his pants being on fire.

  9. I watched the video and I think a few seconds have been edited out. Right at the beginning there ought to be a short segment where he waves his wand at the audience and screams “stupefy!”

  10. It appears the end is in sight for the big scam. It will be interesting to see at what point the climategate scam is acknowledged by the scientific community to have been an egregious failure of the scientific process to protect against the use of false science to push an agenda that would bankrupt the Western countries and have no significant benefit. At what point will the climategate principals and climategate supporters run for the hills, backtracking to try to protect their reputations and careers?

    The so called “skeptics” have known the following for some time. The following is the first real discussion of this reality in the BCC. It appears intelligent, people are becoming aware the Western countries have reached the limit of deficit spending. Financial reality will trump fantasy green scams

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16906738

    .
    The extreme environmental movement is allocating CO2 limiting policies that that will bankrupt the Western Countries and which will have no significant benefit to the “environment”. Increases in atmospheric CO2 are not a threat to the planet. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yield and reduce growing times. CO2 is an essential gas for life. Increases in atmospheric CO2 will not result in dangerous warming. The planet’s feedback response to a change in forcing is to resist the change by increasing clouds in the tropics thereby reflecting more sunlight off into space (negative feedback). A doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1C of warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes where the growing season is limited by the number of frost free days. The planet has warmed and cooled before, with the relative changes greater than the current and also matching solar magnetic cycle changes. The majority of the current warming has not caused by increases in atmospheric CO2. The ocean is not going to become acidic.

    “Finding the name of a Cambridge University engineering professor, Michael Kelly, on the WSJ letter, I decided to get in touch and find out his reasons for signing.

    His basic position is that the kind of energy transformation through which the UK, for example, is planning to go is really tough to achieve in engineering terms, and would be financially ruinous.

    To meet the goals of the Climate Change Act (notably an emissions cut of 80% from 1990 levels by 2050) he argues that “we’d really need a command economy of the kind we had in World War 2 if we were really serious about meeting the targets in full.

    “What we need to do will bankrupt us if we really go for it and ignore the rest of the world.”
    He would, he says, still endorse the rapid transformation if he thought the scientific evidence for needing it was compelling.

    “Are you convinced that the world’s going to hell in a handbasket on the basis of the predictions and what’s been happening for the last 10 or 12 years?
    “The answer is simply ‘no’.

    “I look back 300 years and I find that the temperature went up by more than it’s gone up recently – in Central England from about 1699 to 1729 it went up by nearly 2C – and nobody said that was carbon dioxide.”

    …He also cites a recent study on ocean acidification showing that natural short-term variability in ocean pH is greater than the change in the average projected to occur over the next century or so…

    …And he has a bet with other Fellows of the Royal Society that temperatures during the current decade will be lower, on average, than during the preceding one, the stake being a case of wine…”

  11. The effect of climategate is that we should flush all the pal-reviewed hockeysticks (along with the millions spent building them) and revert to the IPCC’s 2001 version past temperatures.

  12. I read and listened to this. I feel dumber for the experience. Please send this gentleman out our way, we have need for a few new fence posts here in Nevada.

  13. I like to hear how ‘reasoning’ CAGW believers think, so I folled it throough to the end. There was the money shot:

    Professional Climate Communicators [ie his current audience] are likewise dying out. Because Climate Change has become boring. But the question we’ve got to ask ourselves is, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe the idea of selling this as something people are going to deal with as some sort of great collective action enterprise was never going to work. That actually, the way it’s going, the whole Climate Change issue, will be played out by professionals, largely leaving the public out of the picture. That’s sad for democracy, but it may ultimately be the best for the planet.

    His self-satisfied smirk after saying that tells me that is his main, and most important, message.

  14. This is significant in that they admit Climategate did effect the science, that is important as they are now to the point where they are admitting they manipulated data. That alone should get them fired.

  15. Seems to me that the real point of Climategate, as heard by outsiders, was not the hockey stick or any other specific mathematical failing. What impressed outsiders was the arrogance and dirty dealing of Mann, Jones, Trenberth et al. The emails showed that the insiders KNEW they had poor evidence, and constantly manipulated both media and science to ignore their poor evidence.

    “What did he know and when did he know it” is really a dumb question, certainly not a scientific question, but it’s the only question that matters to media and governments. And those emails were full of indications that the “scientists” KNEW they were committing crimes against both science and law.

  16. These eejits seem not to understand that when science is settled it becomes history. If it’s science, it ain’t settled.

  17. Let me hasten to add that whilst there is a physical resemblance, intellectually there is no connection between the erudite Myles, and the bumptious and dim witted Arnold Rimmer.
    tonyb

  18. redcords says:
    May 27, 2012 at 12:07 am
    The likeness of Myles to Arnold J. Rimmer is unfortunate and strangely compelling.

    Save us, Dave Lister!

  19. I find the man very sinister – his ploy of “engaging” with sceptics failed to hide that he is yet another extremist (Climate Jihadi, copyright me) who believes the science is settled and hints that whilst he might not like democracy to be suspended, it may come to that. Something has taken over his brain, and it is not truth and it is not reality.

  20. Urederra says: @ May 27, 2012 at 12:50 am

    These people have no ethics.
    ___________________________________
    That is the take away quote for this whole sorry mess. Perhaps that is what the Heartland Billboard was trying to get across.

  21. He’s simply practicing one of the routines in the AGW Communications Playbook.

    In this case, it’s the “blame the media” play. You know, like “scientists weren’t saying in the 70s the World was cooling, it was the media!”.

    Well, now we have “Because of the media, we have to talk about the instrument record and not about the Hockey Stick.”

    What’s amaziing is the media pawns just ignore this manipulation and manitain their fawning admiration for these guys.

  22. Gail Combs says:
    May 27, 2012 at 4:43 am
    “Urederra says: @ May 27, 2012 at 12:50 am
    These people have no ethics.
    ___________________________________
    That is the take away quote for this whole sorry mess. Perhaps that is what the Heartland Billboard was trying to get across.”

    I disagree. THEY MAKE THE ETHICS.

    All the totalitarianism your taxpayer dollars can buy:

    http://ethics-etc.com/category/environmental-ethics/

    http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.se/2012/05/course-of-sky-is-within-our-power-view.html

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ormer_greens_candidate_professor_clive_hamilton_is_furious/#103775

    http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/3/simultaneous-action-needed-break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons

    “Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated before real action can be taken to effectively address
    threats facing the planet from human-caused contributions to climate change.”
    ( The original quote before they memory-holed the “treated”)

    http://jamesgarveyactually.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/climate-change-for-think.pdf

    http://ocw.nd.edu/philosophy/environmental-philosophy/readings

  23. So the plan is: just in case, if we have to, for climate scientist to overide democracy??? Wow! GK

  24. Its not a failure to communicate at all. Its a failure to tell the truth. That’s the lie!

  25. Who’d a thunk it – GISS has a reputation for adjusting the historical records as new temperatures come in, now “Allen showed the graphic below, sneering that the entire effect of Climategate was 0.02 deg C in the 1870s.”

    Does this mean we’re supposed to give UEA credit/blame for adjusting temperatures? Or the Climategate readers? Or Myles Allen?

  26. William Astley says:
    May 27, 2012 at 2:38 am
    “The following is the first real discussion of this reality in the BCC. It appears intelligent, people are becoming aware the Western countries have reached the limit of deficit spending. Financial reality will trump fantasy green scams

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16906738

    Astonishing. What happened to Black? He doesn’t even smear Prof. Kelly.

    He must have gotten new orders. His socialist leadership at the BBC must have decided that further attacks on the CAGW front are meaningless. That means they will concentrate the attack on the biodiversity front now. And that means that the warmist scientists have no strategic value for the Left anymore.

  27. “Failure to Communicate” I wonder if the real problem isn’t the message and they are just to damn self centred to even realise how bad it really is for the warmist “cause” and how that same public is now beginning to increasingly realise just how corrupt and incompetent the science underpinning the CAGW claims has become.
    The public the warmists are trying so hard to impress sense this and no longer want much to do any more with the sleazy climate warming salesman’s approach to a public that has become increasingly aware that they are being sold a very, very expensive, aged and shoddy, no longer fashionable set of very suspect goods wrapped up as some sort of corrupted science parcel which they can no longer afford.

    A comment on Bishop Hill started me thinking on this so I did a few minutes research.

    The following rough statistics are taken from the various blog sites starting with the first post in each case on Sunday 20th May and finishing with the last post on the Sat 26th May by 0840 hrs UTC [ Australian EST. 1840 hrs ]

    In this 6 day time frame from the Warmista advocacy blogs

    “DeBlobSmog” had 13 posts and 59 comments. [ Deleted comment numbers are unknown ]

    The heavily promoted and anything but “Skeptical Science” had 10 posts and 86 comments.
    [ deleted comment numbers are unknown ]

    The first of the flagship blogs of global warmista science and the representative blog of the CRU Hokey Team,
    “Real Climate” had 4 posts and 100 comments with an additional 10 comments went down the Borehole making it 110 comments in total for that 6 day time frame.
    [ not sure why they bother anymore! ]

    Joe Romm did alright with the second flagship warmista blog “Think Progress”
    “Think Progress” had 47 posts and 505 comments. [ numbers of deleted comments unknown.]

    On the skeptic side;

    UK’s “Bishop Hill ” had 20 posts and 1063 comments in that identical 6 day time frame.

    And of course the king of the World Wide Web’s climate debate, Anthony Watt’s “Watts Up With That” had 31 posts and an astounding 2653 comments in that same 6 day long, identical period of time.

    And all those skeptical blog commenters are apparently from that “tiny minority of climate deniers” so beloved of the 98% of the rest of the world who, all of them apparently, believe that the world is going to burn up from global warming unless “we do something”?
    A stalinist type “re-education and indoctrination campaign” for those “deniers” who dared to comment on the skeptic blogs should fix that problem.[ /sarc ]

  28. The new darling word of people trying to pull the wool over your eyes: “communicate”.

    If somebody’s record is not a shining example of worthyness, the goto fall guy is this entity called “communicate”. If somebody wants to take control, the goto guy is this entity called “communicate”. If somebody wants to look good while standing in a horse pile, the goto guy is this entity called “communicate”. If you make a mistake, don’t sweat it, call “communicate”. If your toilet won’t flush call 1-800 “communicate”.

    I’ld like to find this guy and ride him out on a rail properly tarred and feathered.

    Here is a novel idea. If you want something done…go to work in stead of flappin your gums. I am sick and tired of “communicate”.

  29. ROM,

    Thanks for digging up that interesting information. As I’ve always suspected, the true consensus on climate is populated by scientific skeptics. Alarmist scientists are in a quandary: there is only so much money available, and they don’t want to share it, not even with other like-minded alarmists.

    The ‘Team’ is a relatively small clique that controls access to grants via the compromised climate journal industry. Young postdoc scientists have visions of riding the grant gravy train. But the old timers have no intention of sharing the loot with anyone. The climate scare is motivated entirely by money, not by science. When the money begins to dry up, that will signal the end of climate alarmism.

    As you pointed out, one of the best metrics of a site’s popularity is the number of reader comments. WUWT is closing in on the 1,000,000 comment mark, an amazing accomplishment for a site that is only about five years old. A comment posted here is read by many more people than a comment posted on thinly-trafficked blogs like RealClimate, or any of it’s heavily censoring clones.

  30. Keep your eye on the pea folks… Notice that I’ve hidden the pea whilst simultaneously changing the message that there is nothing to see here folks; we educated elite will protect you poor bored saps by taking charge and managing world your these confusing issues behind your stupid backs, just give us your money and freedom for you. All the while he’s thinking, “Move along now you silly trusting fools, They’re going to give me Craggy Island off of Ireland’s coast as my private kingdom”.

    davidmhoffer says:
    May 27, 2012 at 12:01 am

    Great one David! I always love a pre-emptive tactic! Especially since the trollies are always trying to disrupt, delay and confuse, or is that delude? Glad I didn’t have coffee in my mouth at the time.

  31. I could’ve sworn I matched my strikes and /strikes. Moderator can you please fix?

    The /strike should’ve been after …private kingdom.

    Thanks !

    REPLY:
    Such a mess I gave up, resubmit – Anthony

  32. “We are grateful” to those who pointed out the .02 degrees C error. With gratitude like that, who needs backstabbers.

  33. DennisA says: “The sad thing is, according to Richard Lindzen’s bio, Allen was one of his PhD students. He must have skipped a lot of lectures.”

    That’s nothing. If you’ve read comment threads at Roy Spencer’s from I think about last year (not sure about lately) you’ll notice Dan Kirk-Davidoff defending the high sensitivity view. He was one of Lindzen’s PhD students, and more over they apparently did two papers and worked on a third that never got past preparation in 1994. Ka-Kit Tung is another student of Lindzen’s who seems to have become a warmist.

    It’s a real shame about that ’94 paper, since it looks like it would have had important implications.

  34. There is often a comment or two on these sorts of postings about the failure of media types to pick up on the deceptions in presentations such as that by Myles Allen. Are they not supposed to report what they hear and see? The fault is that they hear and see so much from the AGW agenda and very little from the skeptical side.

    A newspaper or a TV news show has a deadline for news reports and those doing the reporting must meet that time for their work to make the news cycle – and justify their pay. If one moves the discussion to “investigation” and “opinion” articles without the daily deadline, then there is a reason to lament the lack of skeptical work. Still, blogs and printed books are now available that explain the issues. WUWT shows the cover of Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” to the right of the 8th comment @12:50 am. If skeptics want these sorts of things to be more widely distributed they will have to do this. Don’t expect “reporters” to find the interest or time to do so.

  35. Professional Climate Communicators [ie his current audience] are likewise dying out. Because Climate Change has become boring. But the question we’ve got to ask ourselves is, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe the idea of selling this as something people are going to deal with as some sort of great collective action enterprise was never going to work. That actually, the way it’s going, the whole Climate Change issue, will be played out by professionals, largely leaving the public out of the picture. That’s sad for democracy, but it may ultimately be the best for the planet.

    I found this paragraph ominous. What pray tell, is a “Professional Climate Communicator?” The answer to that is simple: he’s a failed propagandist in the MSM (Richard Black comes to mind) whose message has been exposed as wanting, given the condition of CAGW science. How does one defend much less promote a speculative, poorly conceived theory that is being used to impose spartan living conditions on the entire world with or without the consent of the various citizenry?

    The idea that Dr. Allen is promoting here is that he and his friends in the stultified, restless bureaucracies around the world might have to grab the reins and impose their authoritarian vision of greenness on the rest of us chumps. This should be of no surprise to anyone, given their behavior in the past twenty years. It’s been the unstated goal all along.

  36. Friends:

    Myles Allen seems to be under the impression that AGW-promoters have failed to communicate their message to the public.

    But the real problem for AGW-promoters is that they have communicated their message to the public, and most of the public are not stupid.

    Richard

  37. In Reply to JerOme’s comments:
    Myles Allen is part of the cover-up, a member of the propaganda team. Climate change is becoming very interesting, as Western governments have reached the limit of deficit spending. The green scams will bankrupt the Western world. Intelligent socialists and environmentalists are become aware of climategate and the green scam. The end is near for the green scam team. Increases in atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. There will not be dangerous warming. The socialists want money spent on health, education, parks, social programs, and so on. Watch for the point when politicians start to look for scapegoats.

    Science, common sense, employment, environmental protection, and so, is on the side of the so called “skeptics”. It is truly astonishing that billions upon billions of dollars has been spent on the green scams.

    “Jer0me says:
    May 27, 2012 at 3:38 am
    I like to hear how ‘reasoning’ CAGW believers think, so I filled it through to the end. There was the money shot: Professional Climate Communicators [ie his current audience] are likewise dying out. Because Climate Change has become boring. But the question we’ve got to ask ourselves is, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe the idea of selling this as something people are going to deal with as some sort of great collective action enterprise was never going to work. That actually, the way it’s going, the whole Climate Change issue, will be played out by professionals, largely leaving the public out of the picture. That’s sad for democracy, but it may ultimately be the best for the planet. His self-satisfied smirk after saying that tells me that is his main, and most important, message.”

    William,
    Climate change may be boring as there is no real change to discuss. Billions of dollars that are being spent on green scams by governments that have reached the limits of deficit spending is interesting. Climate gate old and new is interesting as the manipulated data is used to promote the scam. The blatant blocking of research papers that do not support the scam is about to end. Scientists have and will start to back track to protect their reputations and careers. Scientists unlike politicians and corporate executives pay a price for data manipulation and cover ups.

    Fortunately, for the Western world free speech, intelligent people, and the internet will protect the Western world from the “green” scam. Climategate is the blatant manipulation and cherry picking of data to create the hockey stick to push an agenda, followed by manipulation of the scientific process to block the scientific exposure of the scam.

    The extreme AGW paradigm is based on a lie.

    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/cg.pdf

    Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists
    by John P. Costella | December 10, 2009
    “The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works…

    …The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.

    The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science…

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

    What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
    “… At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing… …The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century. … …Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts…. ….Another extension to our analysis concerned the claims of statistical significance in Mann’s papers. We found that meaningless red noise could yield hockey stick-like proxy PCs. This allowed us to generate a “Monte Carlo” benchmark for statistical significance. The idea is that if you fit a model using random numbers you can see how well they do at “explaining” the data. Then the “real world” data, if they are actually informative about the climate, have to outperform the random numbers. We calculated significance benchmarks for the hockey stick algorithm and showed that the hockey stick did not achieve statistical significance, at least in the pre-1450 segment where all the controversy is. In other words, MBH98 and MBH99 present results that are no more informative about the millennial climate history than random numbers. …”

  38. John F. Hultquist says: @ May 27, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Don’t expect “reporters” to find the interest or time to do so.
    _____________________________________
    The main Media outlets are propaganda rags.

    The people who own the press control the reporters. CAGW skeptics are not the only ones who have encountered censorship by the press. The “food scare” Animal ID mess saw John Munsell’s story on e-coli wiped by the OWNER at the last minute despite a reporter spending three days interviewing him and the editor OKing the story. Two reporters in Florida got fired. A separate piece states ADM funded the MSM in florida and Derry Brownfield got kicked off the air by his old friend and partner when he ran some stories Monsanto did not like. That is just a couple of examples off the top of my head. I know of several others.

  39. Well, credit where it’s due. They had the public fooled for a mighty good time. What would it be on a worldscale, $$$ thrown to the AGW crowd? Well over a 100 billion at least.

    Maddoff is an amateur compared to their scam.

  40. so, if the climate communist narrative is no longer marketable, i reckon that heartland’s raison d’etre vanishes?
    or will we find the truth is that any advocacy group considers self sustenance as prime directive?

  41. John F. Hultquist says:
    May 27, 2012 at 8:47 am
    “A newspaper or a TV news show has a deadline for news reports and those doing the reporting must meet that time for their work to make the news cycle – and justify their pay.”

    You misunderstand how most (bad) media outlets operates. They don’t care about being fast or correct. They care that their reporting is consistent with the narrative they want to tell. Journalists learn during their education to avoid numbers (hard data if you will) whenever possible, and they learn how to write stories – much like novelists. The number of newspapers sold or the number of viewers is tracked to see which narrative sticks. Then a decision is made and the media outlet sticks to its narrative. The narrative is only silently dropped once it stops selling.

  42. Anthony, thank you for alerting us to the discussion on Climate Audit.

    For those coming aboard the serious debate after ClimateGate I , read the comment by Steve McIntyre that references year 2005 : Steve McIntyre Posted May 27, 2012 at 7:03 AM , article: Myles Allen and a New Trick to Hide-the-Decline

    Sorry but I don’t know how to copy a link to a comment on another site.

    The hockey stick being revisited and for the benefit of those of us who are post ClimateGate I. The age of information that is not easily revised is a great thing.

  43. ROM says:
    May 27, 2012 at 6:26 am
    ======================

    Thank you for the statistics. Not at all suprising. Maybe we are a silent majority. (I know that could be an oxymoron). In the real world I only know a couple of Believers and they are quite rabid in their beliefs. The majority of the acquaintences I know think CAGW is a crock of sh…

  44. John F. Hultquist says:
    May 27, 2012 at 8:47 am
    There is often a comment or two on these sorts of postings about the failure of media types to pick up on the deceptions in presentations such as that by Myles Allen. Are they not supposed to report what they hear and see? The fault is that they hear and see so much from the AGW agenda and very little from the skeptical side.

    A newspaper or a TV news show has a deadline for news reports and those doing the reporting must meet that time for their work to make the news cycle – and justify their pay. If one moves the discussion to “investigation” and “opinion” articles without the daily deadline, then there is a reason to lament the lack of skeptical work. Still, blogs and printed books are now available that explain the issues. WUWT shows the cover of Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” to the right of the 8th comment @12:50 am. If skeptics want these sorts of things to be more widely distributed they will have to do this. Don’t expect “reporters” to find the interest or time to do so.

    I think you are cutting our modern science journalists way to much slack. I’m old enough to remember when science reporting meant guys like Jules Bergman at ABC and the standards then were entirely different. In our present media there is not only a tremendous asymmetry in the amount of coverage given to the opposing sides in this matter, but also an even more significant asymmetry in the way the stories are written.

    If they are reporting on yet another of the endless stream of PR”science” propaganda pieces from the consensus community the reporting will generally be an almost word for word transcription of the press release. If they are feeling especially conscientious they may include a line somewhere near the end that suggests ” some say this may not be as clear cut as indicated”.

    On the infrequent occasions when they can be bothered to report something from the skeptic side, the lede will usually be a truncated soundbite quote which often misrepresents what has been stated and by half way down the opening para we’ll get 1-3 quotes from named sources in the climate community declaring that ” everybody who agrees with me says this is completely wrong”. Which is what passes for a debunking for the guys on “TheTeam”.

    What is amazing and perhaps the biggest indicator of how bogus this nonsense is, is that despite all the claptrap about the well funded D word machine, (which in reality amounts to less than rounding error for just the funded portion of the CAGW propaganda, neglecting entirely the in kind support offered by academia and education, news organizations, network and cable channel programming, movies and celebutards,corporate PR, etc., which dwarf the rest) the alarmists still can’t close the deal.

  45. I dunno, I think there maybe is a “failure to communicate”. The warmists are either flat-out lying about what they think we think, or there’s a very serious misunderstanding! Consider: the evil Heartland Institute is trying to brainwash our innocent children into having doubts about the existance of climate change. The existance of climate change? Hello? Who questions the existance of climate change? (don’t all speak at once!) “The team” appears to think that climate never changed until humans came along and changed it, but I doubt if they really think that. The real disagreement is whether recent climate change differs in some alarming way from the climate change that’s been happening for a few billion years. Not its existance!

    I read somewhere that the BEST data “confirms the hockey stick”. Do “they” understand that the issue is not the “blade” of the hockey stick, but the “handle”? Apparently not.

    I could come up with many other examples, but this comment is long enough. Does the “general public” understand what our viewpoint (“viewpoints” – we don’t claim concensus) actually is? Or is there really a “failure to communicate”? If so, what can we do about it?

  46. This appears to be another excuse by “A GRANT FUNDED SCIENTIST” to justify pouring money money into bad faked science. First they invented “consensus science” by thousands of Scientists [did not bother to tell us what kind of scientists they were - history and English duh?] and that the hypothesis had been “PEER REVIEWED” so it is now a PROOF.

    Well now how did they do that peer review when the base data and the math equations used to construct the computer models that it appear all the different groups used was manipulated. He now says they mis-communicated the information causing confusion? How can one mis- communicate manipulated scientific conclusions? QUACKERY LOOKING FOR MORE GRANT MONEY TO CONTINUE THE LIE.

  47. Just got this email – could not resist as this man is a Noble prize winning Economist – like Mr. Allen is a real climate/weather scientist – common answer is spend more money –

    Krugman: Scientists Should Falsely Predict Alien Invasion So Government Will Spend More Money
    By Noel Sheppard | May 26, 2012 | 16:15

    5
    Change font size: A | A

    Last year New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman called for space aliens to invade earth so that the government would spend money to mount a defense thereby stimulating the economy.

    As aliens have yet to comply with Krugman’s wishes, he advocated on HBO’s Real Time Friday that scientists should get together and lie about an imminent attack to boost federal spending (video follows with transcript and commentary):

    PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: This is hard to get people to do, much better, obviously, to build bridges and roads and healthcare clinics and schools. But my proposed, I actually have a serious proposal which is that we have to get a bunch of scientists to tell us that we’re facing a threatened alien invasion, and in order to be prepared for that alien invasion we have to do things like build high-speed rail. And the, once we’ve recovered, we can say, “Look, there were no aliens.”

    But look, I mean, whatever it takes because right now we need somebody to spend, and that somebody has to be the U.S. government.

    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    High-speed rail to defend ourselves against space invaders?

    As absurd as this seems, folks should realize that to a certain extent, scientists are already doing this.

    Consider those in the scientific community on Al Gore’s side of the anthropogenic global warming debate.

    They have indeed fabricated a doomsday scenario related to carbon dioxide emissions with the expressed intent of getting governments around the world to spend what could end up being trillions of dollars fending off a phantom just as fictitious as Krugman’s aliens.

    As the Nobel laureate said, “Whatever it takes.” This is the Machiavellian way zealots view their causes.

    And this man not only has a column in the New York Times from which to publicize such nonsense, people actually give him awards for it.

    When you think about it, that’s scarier than an actual alien invasion – unless it’s already happened!

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/05/26/krugman-scientists-should-falsely-predict-alien-invasion-so-governmen#ixzz1w60luwqk

  48. Petrossa;
    What would it be on a worldscale, $$$ thrown to the AGW crowd? Well over a 100 billion at least>>>

    You are way low. Wind mill manufacturers and operators are just as much part of the AGW crowd as are the cheer leader scientists. Same for solar power panel manufacturers and operators. Then you have the gigantic subsidies thrown at the agricultural community to grow feedstock for biofuels, plus all the downstream processing into fuel. Plus the reduced efficiency of conventional power grid to make up for the fluctuatiing input from the “green” power sources wind and solar. Plus the reduced efficiency of gasoline powered vehicles due to mixing ethanol with the more efficient gasoline. Plus the higher food prices because we’re diverting food to fuel stock (which is especially egregious as one of the biggest planks in the CAGW platform is that CAGW will cause mass starvation, so they’ve convinced the public to protect the masses from mass starvation… by burning the food).

    There was a recent economic report out claiming that enforcing their current green policies will cost Germany more than Greece defaulting on all their bailout money.

    $100 Billion? Not even close!

    • David,

      Well stated and on point – the global communities have been lied to and cheated out of hundreds of billions with this false science and false promise of renewable energy. We have had solar technologies for 50 years and yet we still can not make them even marginally economical – power cost is understated as PV panels degrade and produce less power every day – solar furnace technology is so expensive that Spain lost most of their manufacturing.

      It is all about the money – wind mills are for Don Quixote to charge and defeat. Ireland paid for the wind operators to just turn them off and they would get paid. he government found the power cost more to use than just to not have it period.

      This is a grand scam and the only place for renewable is far off any grid.

  49. A “failure to communicate” excuse is often used by greedy directors and Bankers when they lose a vote at the company AGM .
    A “failure to communicate” excuse is often used by tired politicians when the population sees through their policy failures.
    So whats new?

  50. Slightly OT, but a significant indication of why assuming we should defer to our supposed intellectual superiors in the science community is largely unjustified.

    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/todays-grade-inflated-lake-wobegon.html

    Today’s Grade-Inflated, Lake Wobegon World; Letter Grade of A Now Most Common College Grade

    Given the accelerating trend reported and the fact that the last data included was from 2006, we may already be at the point where a majority of students will receive As, as long as they pay the money and show up for class more than occasionally

  51. Myles Allen would like to move the argument away from science and into class action law suits.

    “The big question is whether current greenhouse-gas emitters could ever be held liable for the actual impacts of their emissions. The prospect of a class-action suit with up to six billion plaintiffs and an equal number of defendants may seem rather daunting, but if we can overcome these problems in end-to-end attribution………an equitable settlement would apportion liability according to emissions, with some discounting over time to allow for the lifetimes of carbon dioxide anomalies in the atmosphere.”

    http://www.climatelaw.org/articles/allen-nature-article.pdf

    Six billion plaintiffs and six billion defendants?
    Very sad really. Oxford is not what it once was.

  52. perhaps someone should ask a climate scientist that if we climate ‘d-words’are such an extreme minority then why are they so scared of us ? (no death threat intended ) ;-)

  53. That actually, the way it’s going, the whole Climate Change issue, will be played out by professionals [failed Professional Climate Communicators], largely leaving the public out of the picture. That’s sad for democracy, but it may ultimately be the best for the planet.

    Translation for us communication-impaired skeptics and billions of hapless bystanders – so as to..er..save The World: “Prepare yourselves to become one with The Planet!”

    p.s. “Before it’s too late!”

  54. Dave Wendt says: @ May 27, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Slightly OT, but a significant indication of why assuming we should defer to our supposed intellectual superiors in the science community is largely unjustified.

    …. we may already be at the point where a majority of students will receive As, as long as they pay the money and show up for class more than occasionally.
    _______________________________

    That sounds about right. In the last college level course I took, they were concerned about the fact I had missed one more day than allowed. The college insisted I take a remedial “How to study course” until I pointed out I had a straight 100% average. They flunked me anyway on the basis of attendance. The course was much easier than any I took in high school decades ago. Used to be you could show up for the tests and turn in the homework and no one cared if you showed up for lecture. – “Political Correctness” strikes again

  55. I have had courses that were sticklers for the attendance rules and others that were all about doing the coursework. The “doing the coursework” ones were Math and Physics, the take attendance was a history course.

    Of course I am one of those people that if I miss class it means I am in the hospital.

  56. I especially never miss a non-science course since the grading is so dependent on the professors personal views on things. I make sure I am there so I can pick up on his/her biases and regurgitate them on the tests and papers. I may know that the prof is full of hooey, but I get my A.

  57. Gail Combs says:
    May 27, 2012 at 9:55 am
    DirkH says:
    May 27, 2012 at 10:02 am

    You seem close to, but not quite there yet, of understanding that “the press” [Gail C.] and the “media outlets” [Dirk H.] are businesses operated with the expectation of profits. You have called their operating procedures propaganda, censorship, and narrative. You interpret these as negatives and would prefer, it seems, that a company owned by someone else tell the stories you think should be told and in a manner you think acceptable. If you want to place your interpretation before the public, you (to quote from my previous comment) “will have to do this” – as Anthony Watts, Joanne Nova, and numerous others have done and continue to do.

    The reporter that covers a climate talk on Tuesday may be covering a dog show on Wednesday and a presentation on how to cure diaper rash on Thursday. These news bits are possible because they sell advertising. Advertising pays the bills. Once you understand this, all the rest of it falls into place. Don’t expect something else.

  58. Climate gate memos and McKitrick’s analysis support the assertion that data was manipulated and the scientific process thwarted to prevent the uncovering of the scam to push a flawed political agenda?

    What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/25/united-nations-climate-talks-nothing-but-hot-air

    UN climate summits a colossal waste of public funds?
    “…The UN proposing a $100 billion dollars a year of Western Country tax payer dollars to be sent to corrupt third world governments after skimming off by corrupt UN officials?

    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/25/united-nations-climate-talks-nothing-but-hot-air

    UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres insisted it was critical the Bonn talks made further progress on how funds will be raised – extorted might be another apt word — from major industrialized nations and directed to poorer countries in the year’s after 2020.

    This epic global fundraising will underwrite something called the Green Climate Fund, to be run under the paternalistic auspices of the UN. The fund will need $100 billion a year from 2020 onwards to operate. No precise agreement at Bonn on how it would work, despite Christiana Figueres exhortations, just consensus that major developed and industrialised countries like Canada will have to foot the bill. So there.

    …All of which pretty much reflects the UN as it is today; a preening debating society that marries incompetence with good intentions, meddling with over-reaching ambition. It should also surprise nobody to hear such hand-wringing doesn’t come cheap. The regular budget of the UN is nearly $1.9 billion per year. It pays for basic UN activities, staff and basic infrastructure at 760 United Nations Plaza, New York, New York. The UN then spends an additional $15 billion annually on activities that include everything from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, UNESCO, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation — and endless climate change meetings in exotic locales.Funding comes from member nations. Canada is the seventh largest UN funding provider, meaning Canadian taxpayers and their dollars are helping to pay for all this — literally and figuratively.

    Evidence of manipulation of public opinion to push the climate change agenda by a lead AR4 IPCC author?

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns….

    Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

    Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as he IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. ”

    I am shocked! Shocked! There is wide spread evidence of a “green” scam. The Western countries do not have billions of deficit dollars to spend on green scams.

  59. John F. Hultquist says:
    May 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    You seem close to, but not quite there yet, of understanding that “the press” [Gail C.] and the “media outlets” [Dirk H.] are businesses operated with the expectation of profits. You have called their operating procedures propaganda, censorship, and narrative…..
    __________________________________
    No John, since I was among the farmers trying to get the truth out, I did my homework. You are correct that the advertisers are part of the picture but a more important part is this:

    U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947

    Congressman Calloway announced that the J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America’s leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.

    The CHAIRMAN: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Texas, a member of the [defense appropriations] committee.

    Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a statement that I have of how the newspapers of this country have been handled by the munitions manufacturers.

    The CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record by inserting a certain statement. Is there any objection?

    Mr. MANN: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, may I ask whether it is the gentleman’s purpose to insert a long list of extracts from newspapers?

    Mr. CALLAWAY: No; it will be a little, short statement not over 2 ½ inches in length in the Record.

    The CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection?

    There was no objection.

    Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert into the Record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains their activity in the war matter, just discussed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORE]:

    “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.

    “These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

    “This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.

    “This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is ‘patriotism.’ They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.”…. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Morgan-Buys-Newspapers9feb17.htm

    Things have not changed much:

    JP Morgan: Our next big media player?

    If U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey today approves Tribune Co.’s reorganization plan, enabling it to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, New York-based banking giant JP Morgan Chase will become a significant media player, owning more television stations than any major network and becoming America’s second largest newspaper publisher.

    JP Morgan Chase was one of Sam Zell’s leading banks, helping fund the real estate baron’s $8.2 billion buyout in December 2007 to take Chicago-based Tribune from a publicly held company to one that’s private.

    JP Morgan is the administrator of $8.57 billion in senior debt against Tribune and itself holds about $1 billion of that.

    JP Morgan Chase already owns a majority stake in Irvine, Calif.-based Freedom Communications, publisher of The Orange County (Calif.) Register, 25 other daily newspapers and operator of eight television stations.

    And last year, JP Morgan Chase took over Yardley, Pa.-based Journal Register Co., publisher of 19 daily newspapers.

    At both Freedom and JRC, JP Morgan Chase had been the lead lender. When the companies could no longer repay their loans, they swapped debt for equity in their reorganization plans, making the bank their majority shareholder as they emerged from bankruptcy protection.

    If it takes control of Tribune today, JP Morgan will now oversee 54 U.S. daily newspapers, the largest being the Los Angeles Times, making it the country’s second largest daily newspaper publisher after Gannett…..

    That does not include the papers where they hold the mortgage or where former bank employees are on the board of directors. For example AOL bought out the Huffington Post.
    On the board of directors we have a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (Alberto Ibargüen), a former Director of CIT Group Inc (Susan M. Lyne) and a former partner at Plainfield Asset Management, (Karen E. Dykstra) who “manages investment capital for high net worth individuals based in the United States and abroad.” The chairman (Tim Armstrong former VP of Google) is also Chairmen of The Advertising Council Inc. who just won a $2,049,078 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency for ready campaign support services.”

    General_Electric is the world’s second largest company after J.P. Morgan Chase.

    Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA; CMCSK) and General Electric (NYSE: GE) yesterday closed their transaction to create a joint venture…

    The new company is 51 percent owned by Comcast, 49 percent owned by GE,…

    J.P. Morgan was lead financial advisor to GE with Goldman Sachs and Citi acting as co-advisors….
    http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-and-ge-complete-transaction-to-form-nbcuniversal-llc.html

    J.P. Morgan Chase has been the training ground for several Chairman of the World Bank. Three presidents, John J. McCloy, Eugene Black and George Woods all worked at Chase before taking up positions at the World Bank. David Rockefeller has also for many years hosted annual luncheons at the family’s Westchester County Pocantico estate for the world’s finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF.

    The World Bank is 100% behind CAGW link. The Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002 was Robert Watson. In 1996, Watson joined the World Bank as Senior Scientific adviser and is now the World Bank’s Chief Scientist and Senior Adviser for Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) At Copenhagen, the “Danish text” leaked to the Guardian, The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank…

    My comment was based on research not hand waving.

  60. “That actually, the way it’s going, the whole Climate Change issue, will be played out by professionals [failed Professional Climate Communicators], largely leaving the public out of the picture. That’s sad for democracy, but it may ultimately be the best for the planet.”

    This sounds a lot like “keep the faith, the mother ship will be picking us up soon”.

  61. I take Professor Allen’s final comment as a warning. People aren’t buying their alarmist message anymore, so the next move by these arrogant narcissists is an end-around the people. Grant money and awards aren’t enough; they want power, too. They’ve always been after the power but they expected us to willingly hand it over to them and beg them to save us. Now that plan isn’t working, they will try to bypass the voice of the people and establish a “global authority” to give them the power they crave. But don’t fall for the convenient excuse that these elitist “professionals” want to save the planet. They just want to rule over it. Like Animal Farm, they expect to live in the comfortable farmhouse while they dictate rules for the rest of us to follow as we try to eek out a meager living in the barn.

  62. Gail Combs says:
    May 27, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    After changing the focus from “reporters” to bankers and other owners of newspapers and television you have done a fine and through job of making my two main points.
    Namely, “. . .there is a reason to lament the lack of skeptical work.”
    and, . . .
    “If skeptics want these sorts of things to be more widely distributed they will have to do this.”
    —————————-

    Dave Wendt says:
    May 27, 2012 at 10:53 am
    I think you are cutting our modern science journalists way to much slack. I’m old enough to remember when science reporting meant guys like Jules Bergman at ABC and the standards then were entirely different. In our present media there is not only a tremendous asymmetry in the amount of coverage given to the opposing sides in this matter, but also an even more significant asymmetry in the way the stories are written.

    Good point. Thanks. I too remember. Lately, though, I haven’t paid attention to national TV, especially the old big-3. I did find this about CNN:

    http://scienceprogress.org/2008/12/cnn-decides-it-can-cover-science-without-dedicated-science-reporters/

    Even Chris Mooney, in one of his sane moments, has his say:

    http://scienceprogress.org/2008/10/the-science-writers-lament/

  63. “This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.”

    Gail, Oscar Calloway was an Isolationist Democrat — in this instance, the newspapers were correct about our state of preparedness (it sucked) for war in 1917. About the possibility and probability of attack by a belligerent — not so much.

  64. Max Hugoson says:
    May 27, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    No one got this one refered to?

    I think that scene was the first thing that popped into everyone’s mind, Max. Thanks for the vid!

  65. I typed “spectular” rather than “spectacular” in an earlier post. Was I subconsciously equating “spectular” with consensus climate science?

    Heh!

  66. Gail Combs says:
    May 27, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    partial quote:

    General_Electric is the world’s second largest company after J.P. Morgan Chase.

    Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA; CMCSK) and General Electric (NYSE: GE) yesterday closed their transaction to create a joint venture…

    The new company is 51 percent owned by Comcast, 49 percent owned by GE,…

    ==================================

    G.E. is preparing for the presidential election in 2012.

    Last election in 2008 it was NBC (IIRC).

    Where are the greens screaming “monied corporate interests”?

    Think about it with regards to the next appliance you buy. Think about it when a wind farm goes up in your neighborhood. Think about it when your electric bill skyrockets. Think about it when other policies unrelated to G.E. interests get shoved down your throat as a result of the possible outcome of the pending election. Think about why G.E. has such an interest in communications just before a presidential election. Just think about it!

  67. With regards to the above comment, I forgot something.

    Thank you Gail for the research you’ve done and for sharing it.

Comments are closed.