Worth repeating, in their own words on video, from Pierre Gosselin’s “No tricks Zone”:
For the media, at least for the AP’s Seth Borenstein (seen at left in the video), it’s not about presenting the science in a professional and balanced manner, rather it’s all about sensationalizing it and getting the editor to print it. The good stuff starts at about the 7:30 mark.
Seth Borenstein of The Associated Press, Craig Welch of the Seattle Times, and documentary producer Steve Sapienza lead an interactive session that provides insights and tips from accomplished reporters whose reporting on climate change has been lauded for its accuracy, accessibility, and originality at Metcalf Institute’s Climate Change and the News: Impacts in Marine and Coastal Environments seminar for journalists held in Washington, DC April 24-25, 2014 (Video published Online Sept 7th, 2014)
45:38 Craig Welch boasting:
Nobody in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of. And if I find out about it I will go talk to them myself, but I also work in a newsroom where my managing editor used to be an environmental reporter and so there’s never been, I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.f3InZdi5.dpuf
These reporters don’t even know how to speak a grammatically correct sentence. (Explain the first sentence in the quotes!)
I’m glad I’m not the only one confused by that quotation.
” (There’s) Nobody in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe (that) climate change is real , that I know of. ”
I know that some folks at WUWT think it is just cool to write words without any punctuation.
Sometimes something as close to the end of civilization as a simple comma (,) can make the incomprehensible seem intelligent.
With suggested parenthicated additions from me of course.
An armed panda comes into the restaurant then eats shoots and leaves.
He presumably means “There is nobody, that I know of, in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real”
However practically illiterate journalists are quite common these days thanks to the decay of the school system.
Mikeshere-
Look a head in the river.
Look ahead in the river.
a single comma is very important
I can’t leave her behind alone,
I can’t leave her behind, alone.
“I don’t know anybody in my newsroom who dares to quote climate deniers”. Is that the line a young US journalist should learn? Those words may end up way up there with “I’ll take the orange jump suit and the black blindfold, please” line being taught to journalists who are headed into northern Syria.
The first sentence is quite grammatical for anyone who understands basic English, or can diagram sentences.
Let me explain it to you:
Nobody in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of.
Start with people who don’t believe climate change, call them skeptics
Nobody in my newsroom who quotes skeptics is real.
Seth is merely explaining that there are imaginary people in his newsroom.
He knows that his audience is none-too-bright. He is a pro who well understands that he helps to sell soap and has pitched his appeal accordingly, and he could give a rodent’s rectum about what we on WUWT think.
Let the diagramming begin.
Disregard. I can’t diagram a sentence that ends in a preposition. They didn’t teach me that in school, and I haven’t learned it since, **so far as I know**.
Yep, that was my first thought. Thankfully he’s clearly on a path to recovery in denying that the leprechauns from Wattsupwiththat who speak to him in his newsroom are real ones. Of course there is nothing in what he said to intimate what the real ones tell him in his newsroom or in his bedroom for that matter, we simply don’t know.
… and he talks to them.
In reply to tteclod, who said, ” I can’t diagram a sentence that ends in a preposition.”
That’s the kind of nonsense I won’t put up with, to paraphrase Winston Churchil.
Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, some notable writers (aka Latin-obsessed 17th century introverts) tried to make English grammar conform to that of Latin – hence the veto on split infinitives and also the ruling against the ending of a sentence with a preposition (also called stranding or deferring a preposition).
In speaking Latin, it’s impossible to split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition. English is not Latin: in English there are no such restrictions.
Speaking? There is so much more to speaking than being grammatical. sheesh.
[There is] nobody in my newsroom who quotes [people who don’t believe climate change is real] that I know of.
In other words, he reckons nobody in his newsroom will give air to skeptics.
Looking for good scientists that also are activists?
Nice to know because you can not be both and still be a scientist.
Also raise the question. Can the 3 be both journalists and activists?
The answer to that question is no. Good journalism can advocate, but advocacy is not journalism.
If you listen to the video at 45:38, you can hear what he actually says. The problem is that it was transcribed wrong in the quotation above. An extra “who” was added to the sentence that was not there. This is what he actually said:
“Nobody in my newsroom quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real, that I know of.”
In other words, he’s bragging about the one-sided censorship that occurs in his newsroom. Today’s “news” has become propaganda, and today’s “journalists” are actually proud of their roll in betraying and destroying true journalism.
Frankly, I give a lot of leeway to people speaking extemporaneously in question and answer sessions. Some people are quite good at it and some aren’t. I wouldn’t necessarily expect a reporter to do this well.
What is wrong with just telling the truth.
The truth that the global warming forecasts are way off so far. Is the real Earth just trying to confuse us or is the simple fact a simple fact.
Journalism used to be about the simple fact. When did it change? What is wrong with the truth?
Why the need to spin beyond the truth? When does Seth’s editors fix the obvious problem here.
What is wrong with just telling the truth.
It does not pay as well.
Bu the time you get your boots on the enemy is already halfway around the world.
It’s a version of what Goebbels coined in the final months of the war as “poetic truth” which he described to an assistant as events of the imagination that “should have taken place”.
These ‘journalists’ invent stories of what they imagine ought to be happening as per the IPCC’s most alarmist predictions.
Back issues of Pravda may help you see when journalism changed and what is wrong with the truth (Pravda in Russian)
I don’t think real journalism was ever about the simple fact. Just look up the term “yellow journalism.” It might be comforting to think that there was a time when you could trust journalism. But I think that is probably naive. That said, I’d guess that the quality of journalism probably goes through cycles as people either get fed up with the lies or get bored by the mundane truth.
This isn’t journalism it’s pure advocacy by the church of CAGW
I went out a few weeks ago and we had the second earliest snow ever (that is in over 100 years of records). It is warming wut done it. Because when ever it warms we get snow. Innit? Now that we have all these fantastic models (which is the correct one?) we will never need a weatherman again. Good thing too as they are so often wrong.
What are you talking about? Seth Borenstein is a laughing stock, nobody (even his pals from Associated Press) take this clown seriously.
Prof. Singer is a scientist. One of the few with integrity and knowledge. You are not worthy of pronouncing his name.
And yes, cancer frequently attacks people who don’t smoke, and many people who smoke like locomotives don’t have cancer and live to their 90s. Such are the facts. Being predisposed for cancer and smoking is a very bad combination, indeed. But persecution of smokers has become a favorite preoccupation of blighters incapable to find any other way to feel superior to others. (Disclaimer: I quit smoking more than a year ago, after 40 years of puffing, and didn’t even brag about it until now.)
You need to work on your arguments – and your insults – more, Peter. The fact that you say smoking causes cancer is a syllogism: You know that some smokers contract cancer of the lung; yet you know that some never do. But you’d rather splash the headline that smoking causes cancer, without qualification. That’s why I tend not to bother with you. I’ve made an exception because you want to denigrate someone for no good reason other than it allows you to believe that person is worthless, and therefore, so are his arguments. In your case, it is your arguments that are worthless.
Still hitting the laughing gas, I see.
What’s an Ozone Shield?
While I’m here Peter, my brother died of a brain tumour (cancer) in March of this year aged 59.
He had never smoked a cigarette in his life.
Your education was complete.
Pete,
News flash for ‘ya, your so called science is corrupt. The IPCC is mandated to scientifically justify global warming. NO evidence to the contrary will be permitted. These reporters’claim that a small group of scientists in the employ of the UN have settled the “science” is laughable. They all peer review themselves and condemn sceptics as science deniers. It is now those claiming human CO2 emissions are causing global warming that are the real deniers; no warming for 17 years. Another 20 years of no warming and all the climate alarmists will have died off and we will have two generations that have never witnessed any warming. The world will then be done with this nonsense.
“…I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”
Indeed, Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press, many know what you’re doing, so…shame on you for doing it.
Amazing, they admit they quote scientists then extrapolate whatever they feel like from the quote. Another startling admission is that they refuse to quote sceptics.
So climate alarmism is all media hype.
Is that sign in the background for the “Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholarship” ? There’s an oxymoron right there. Woodrow was (to put it kindly) “Never mistaken, but very often wrong”. To name a “Scholarship Center” after him makes “sense”.
Enough said right there. These folks want everybody in a constant panic; “Never let a good crisis go to waste, you can get away with things you otherwise couldn’t” (paraphrased somewhat).
Management by “Catch Phrase”, what could possibly go wrong ?
Cheers, Kevin.
Same basic problem, different decade (or two). Quoting from the pg 3 14th paragraph at this 1994 LA Times article ( http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-13/news/mn-38141_1_risk-issues/3 ): “Dumanoski of the Boston Globe recalls “a big argument with a top editor at the Globe, on deadline” about a story in which a Harvard University scientist said there was ‘a very high probability’ of a large hole in the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere before the end of the century. Dumanoski says her editor told her the story would be worthy of Page 1 only if the scientist said there definitely would be a large hole; ‘high probability’ wasn’t good enough to warrant Page 1.”
And a quote from the same Boston Globe’s Dianne Dumanoski circa 1990(3rd-to-last paragraph here http://sisu.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834518c7969e2014e885efa88970d-pi ): “There is no such thing as objective reporting…I’ve become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That’s my subversive mission.”
I wonder what “climate change is real” means to people who use such a phrase. I know it doesn’t mean anything. Just wondering what is actually going on inside their heads.
Get with the program, silly. “Climate change” means imminently catastrophic climate change caused by human activity. Even though the phrase contains none of those words.
Changing the meaning of words through repetition and information control. Basic propaganda technique.
It means hand over your wallet
Climate journalists don’t the most basic of research on their topics. A simple search for polar vortex shows the term used at least as early as the 1880s. Parrots.
Egocentrically giddy parrots.
I wonder if they can come up with a catch phrase about the 3rd largest recorded increase in arctic ice extent, which happened today: NSIDC reports a triple century today: +326k.
My suggestion is ‘Holy Crap! Don’t we look like idiots.’
the reason the grammar skips a beat is because he had to change his lies halfway through. One of two things and he was unable to say either one concisely: under his editor there has either never been a reporter who would have included fact or, the editor would never have allowed a quote.
Fishing for new catch phases and bumper sticker slogans is required to keep the lofo voter and supporter.
Make sure the peeps don’t get the real stuff because…{they wouldn’t read AP anymore}
So they are no longer reporting news. They are suppressing and censoring a discussion. In other words, they are mere bigots. The chronic obsession with “marketing” and “communicating” so-called climate change is a huge tell about the lack of reality in what these faux journalists and their cohorts are pushing.
It’s all about the narrative, but Nature is Nemesis.
==================
They are churnalists, not journalists. Once you accept that, everything makes sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism
There is even an freely available search tool that allows you to tell the difference …
http://churnalism.com/
I wish someone would design a similar detector – http://wordspew.com
Craig Welch is the reporter who did The Seattle Times ocean acidification series in 2013. Recent reporting on Puget Sound shellfish has created somewhat a kerfuffle since the US EPA,Washington State and UW prof. Cliff Mass disagree with The Seattle Times articles. Dr. Mass now finds himself persona non grata with the Times. (Specifically Mr. Welch, I would guess.) Dr. Mass discusses it on his blog Sept. 7, 2014.
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/09/epa-takes-on-oysteracidification.html
Borenstein and the AP have been dealing in climate alarmist propaganda for years. They are engaged in a campaign of political ideology that has nothing to do with science.
45:38 Craig Welch boasting:
“Nobody in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of. And if I find out about it I will go talk to them myself, but I also work in a newsroom where my managing editor used to be an environmental reporter and so there’s never been, I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”
****
As a regular reader and follower of WUWT, I can easily tell how the statement above completely misrepresents the issues of CAGW and climate change–and I am not even a scientist. This is an issue of how much the Earth’s climatic system is sensitive to the GH effect of CO2 and how much climate change can be attributed to humankind’s contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere–if any of it can be. And the sensitivity issue is one that is far from being understood and settled.
It boils my blood to see MSM buffoons like these guys misrepresenting the issue and misleading the American people. The only consolation is knowing that climate change/CAGW is so low on the American public’s list of the issues that matter to them today. So why don’t these dim MSM light bulbs just drop the subject?
It is somewhat amusing to think that these guys actually believe they are going to “save the planet” this way. Give me a break.
…..and no, Welch’s statement makes no sense to me either. And I read it multiple times.
It’s not about temperature. The Liberals/Progressives/Greenies control most of the media and their agenda has nothing to do with temperature.
Well, temperature really was never anyone’s concern by itself, the mother of the issue requires that “it” is “bad”. No boogeyman = no news. Journalism has become less about reporting the news and more about manipulating people’s perception of it for political expediency.
By US standards, I’d probably be considered a Liberal, Progressive and possibly a ‘Greenie’ too, yet after seeing the Lysenkoist stifling of debate, systemic cherry picking, confirmation bias, misrepeseantation of data, blurring of the lines between science and activism and screeching propagandising that becomes more intense the more vulnerable to sceptical inquiry its tenants become, I also consider the CAGW scare a crock of s***t on a magnitude unparalleled in human history. A popular delusion and a madness not necessarily of crowds, but of a group of (mostly left leaning) self aggrandising Cassandras living under the illusion of a hallowed system of hermetic knowledge with just enough sheen of credibility to appear scientific (so long as you don’t look too closely at the data and are willing to stretch the definitions of ‘science’) but not so demanding on the level presented by its high priests as to really require a close look. Self sustaining in terms of the rewards available to its most vehement followers – acceptance, fashionability, money, moral superiority and righteousness, and maybe more forgivably, a kind of talisman against the fear of both nature and the modern world with its terrifying uncertainties: if you believe scary events that are far bigger than you are can be caused by humans, it’s easier to believe they can be brought under control by humans.
Though the CAGW scare shares these qualities with many political movements, it is motivated by both more and less than politics (depending on how you look at it). It is a mistake for sceptics to be drawn into the idea of this being a war between left and right – it too easily allows adherents of this nonsense to dismiss critics as being motivated by wealth and idealism rather than (as is my case) an allergy to dishonesty, no matter how noble the cause, and to blinker themselves to any reasonable criticism or questioning. CAGW alarmism is at its roots driven by personal and group psychology, which might embody political views, but does not necessarily stem from them or motivate them. CAGW propagandists like Borenstien and Klien are driven by hubris over anything else.
Good reply. The old definition of “democrat/liberal” has been subverted & transformed into something mostly unrecognizable from 50 or so yrs ago. I’d be called a “conservative”, but generally find all politicians and politics reprehensible nowadays. From a book I read many years ago — Politics are the antithesis to science much more than religion.
JJB MKI, you are correct in your thinking vis a vis left and right IN THEORY. However, in real life, the left does have a leg up on this kind of fraud simply because of it’s collectivist nature and the ‘preparation’ that a largely sosh@list education provides. There is a lot wrong with the ‘Right’ and free enterprise, but one can neutralize a good part of it with regulation (unfair trade practices, etc. etc.). There is certainly no argument that the right is an engine of wealth creation, whereas the left is a redistributor of wealth, ultimately to the point of killing the goose with its golden eggs by trying to support a huge civil service that makes people dependent on them with lavish programs.
Yeah, yeah, I get it that there is a sizable antediluvian part of the right with crimson necks and a resistance to change, but at the same time, it is also natural that individualist thinkers and sceptics are more likely to come from the right than the left. Leftist intellectuals are preoccupied with the ideology, beating down the right, and don’t pay much heed to whether science is right or wrong. Final defeat of the right and the leftist intellectuals essentially disappear. Naturally, honest, thinking sceptics are clubbed over the head with the handy antediluvian part by their antagonists, so their distinction is largely buried without having to think about what they have to say.
I have an extended family member who is a Trotskyite that I love to argue with (and he with me- he is a very bright fellow). When I argue that the failed systems, like former Soviet Union and China (which has chosen revision toward free enterprise rather than a dropping out of communism) are falsifications of the system, he disowns them as a hijacking of the pure system by ham-handed, power hungry opportunists. Naturally, my argument is that the hijacking is made inevitable by collectivism. Also, there is no regulatory avenue to restrict the corruption of the system – regulations are made in camera by those who would corrupt it.
Once you have everyone collected, it’s ripe for a hijacking, just like once you get enough radioactive material gathered together there is an unequivocal result. Such dissidents as Soltzhenitsyn and the other few brave souls that somehow in that barren medium preserved a desire for individualism and freedom of thought is almost miraculous. However, viewed from the mass of the collected, such individuals are merely mentally ill, ineducable, schizoid, dangerous to themselves and others.
The vid lasts for a painful hour but is quite revealing. Much of the grammar is disjointed. This, far from costing the speaker credibility within his clique, adds to it because their whole position is based on emotion. To us rational folk this is repugnant, or at least offputting; to ‘believers’, such incoherent gushing is a mark of sincerity, of authentic passion. I see no sign that these wicked subversives are aware that the AGW hoax is factually wrong. To them, facts schmacts. The mentality is utterly alien to yer average WUWT reader with his rational mindset but, as they say, know thine enemy. These skilled and sincere propagandists, like Mann and Hanson, have the ear of government. Regardless of the Pause, these gits are still winning.
Borenstein bores.
Borenstein bears his ignorance.
His real name is Seth Boringstern.
The wonder is that these people seem to actually believe that climate change is actually occurring.
Amazing.
Yeah. Amazing
Haha, see my point above 🙂
According to an article today in ABC News, “Some people, mostly non-scientists, have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but “no one’s told the globe that,” Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming”. (Jessica Blunden is a NOAA climate scientist).
And all along I thought those posting in WUWT were mostly scientists – I guess I was wrong (sarc).
The ABC news link is http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/month-global-heat-record-broken-26318649
(sorry – I do not know how to format links in this web site).
From the article:
“It’s pretty likely” that 2014 will break the record for hottest year, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden.
The reason involves El Nino, a warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide. In 1998, the year started off super-hot because of an El Nino. But then that El Nino disappeared and temperatures moderated slightly toward the end of the year.
This year has no El Nino yet, but forecasts for the rest of the year show a strong chance that one will show up, and that weather will be warmer than normal, Blunden said.
============
So – no warming yet – but it is sure to come. Real soon now.
Not amazing at all. It’s what they’re being told. Over, and over, and over, and over.
Couple that with human nature and wanting to “feel good” about something…and there you have the basis for the magical recipe that keeps this going.
Post-reporter journalism. They are all editors now and all they write are editorials. “Reporter” is so last century.
Of course! With editorials you don’t even have to maintain an aura of objectivity–you can opine to your hearts content!
Craig Welch of Seattle Times wrote the Sea Change series on ‘ocean acidification’. It is fatally flawed bad science reporting. I wrote him and his newspaper presenting one of two proofs (guest posted at Climate Etc.) Never got even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Cliff Mass of U. Wash also tried via his excellent blog, and was also declared Seattle Times persona non grata.
So, the larger essay with two examples debunking Sea Change (corals in addition to oysters) titled Shell Games appeared in my new ebook Blowing Smoke yesterday. Foreward from Judith Curry. Maybe now you all can use it to get Seth’s, Craig’s, and the Seattle Times attention. At least, theynwill have a VERY hard time responding to Blowing Smoke. Since that’s what they do, and the book presents verifiable, documented counterfacts.
This is marketing, pure and simple. They have a “product”, they have a distribution mechanism, and they are very good at marketing that product. They’ve identified a demographic of likely “consumers” who will pay for their product, and they’re not going to deviate from that plan. Their consumers are hooked on it…and continue to pay for it, thereby supporting their industry.
If they were to deviate from it, sales/support goes down, and they’d all find themselves with no profession and no means of support.
Looks like plagiarism of the 1967 film ‘In Like Flint.’
This bit on YouTube does not do it justice.
You will have to get and watch the entire movie to see the sean of the three scientists explaining their eco-terrorism to control Weather.
Jolly Good,
A