Steve McIntyre writes on Climate Audit:
Fox News is running a one-hour special on climate tonight at 9 p.m. [6PM PST]
(which is being re-aired on Wednesday, I think.)
I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I was interviewed in Toronto by Fox News when they were in Toronto for the Munk Debates (Dec 1) – Nigel Lawson and Bjorn Lomborg v George Monbiot and Elizabeth May (Green Party of Canada leader). It’s my understanding that they will be using some of this footage in one of the segments of the program tonight.
They were extremely well prepared for the interview to say the least, even being acquainted with as small a nuance of the debate as the Starbucks Hypothesis. I suspect that I’m going to look pretty weary in the interview – I was in the process of going through the Climategate Letters, which are discourging even for third party readers.
I think that the producers are trying to make the show more nuanced than the usual effort in this field (on either side). Not an easy task.
==========================
For those who don’t know what the “Starbucks Hypothesis” is:
“Can a scientist have a cup of Starbucks coffee in the morning, head to the mountains and do tree ring sampling, and be back home in time for dinner”?
It was created in response to some scientists excuses that they don’t have the time or resources to update tree ring records or to take additional samples of some Colorado and California trees. The premise of the hypothesis being that such USA sampling expeditions are easily within driving distance of civilization in USA today, represented by Starbucks.
Steve demonstrates the proof of the Starbucks hypothesis here where he does his own sampling expedition, coffee in hand.
It appears some scientists are just barn sour.
More detail regarding the broadcast:
Bret Baier special, “Fox News Reporting: Global Warming…Or Hot Air?” that airs Sunday, December 20 at 9 PM ET.
John Mackie (11:21:43) :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
Thanks John. Wow. ‘Conflict of interest’ does not come close to do it justice. What is the world coming to? We are governed by criminals.
From the therapeutic portion of the barn sour reference: “Carrying a short crop or bat, the rider may elect to give a quick tap in order to get the horse’s attention focused back on him.”
I might object to batting a cantankerous horse, but it sounds like appropriate therapy for some climate scientists, especially those wanting to take a poke at Pat Michaels.
Fox should really stop trying so hard to be unbiased, and just be unbiased. They lean too far to the right just like many other news outlets lean too far to the left. If Fox actually were fair and balanced, they’d be fantastic.
Unfortunately I think Steve appearing on Fox will do him more harm than good.
Policyguy (11:38:51) :Whoever put the CRU email files together knew where the smoking guns were.
I suspect each and every data and program file included in the “documents” folder, were also carefully chosen.
this is transcript of a presentation Steve McIntyre gave at Ohio State.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf
slow loader
this opened my eyes up to the scam a few years ago. some of it is quite technical but it is worth printing out and sitting in an easy chair to get the complete perspective of the Mann/McIntyre controversy.
Mapou (12:26:21) :
John Mackie (11:21:43) :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
Thanks John. Wow. ‘Conflict of interest’ does not come close to do it justice. What is the world coming to? We are governed by criminals.
Anthony must have seen this link by now, I was pasting it in notes and tips 10 hours ago. Maybe he’s keeping it up his sleeve to see if the U.S. MSM runs with it?
Jeff Alberts (12:42:05) :
I agree with you, up to a point. What the whole Climategate episode has demonstrated is the investment of credibility that most of the mainstream media have made in climate alarmism and the “scientific consensus” that is now shown to be near worthless.
I would charge the Hockey Team and the IPCC for being the people most responsible for the renaissance of Fox News.
I don’t think it matters too much to Steve McIntyre, a Clinton Democrat, because frankly his message about science is being heard loud and clear anyways.
Ric
While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar sites). For historical reasons, many of the important records were obtained in the 1970s and 1980s and have yet to be updated.
This is exactly what one would say when applying for large government grants, would they not? 🙂
Jeff Alberts,
With the exception of some of their opinion programs, Fox only seems to be too far right, only because it is not all left all the time. Personally, I have abandoned TV news altogether, not because of their biases one way or the other, but because of the 24/7 coverage of non-news stories like Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods, Natalie Holoway, and a seemingly endless parade of other non-issues. If not for the internet, it would seem that nothing interesting is ever happening anywhere in the world.
Oh dear, is this a “hide the decline” moment history has forgotten?
http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/07/niwot-ridge-colorado/ mentions:
The more Fox is unbiased the more even the see-saw stays steady. The facts will play out for the best, ugly for the tilted interpretations of the data readers. No hockey sticks allowed.
Policyguy (11:38:51) :
Thanks boballab (10:07:53), and thank you for the link to American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.ht
That’s a bad link–it cut off the last two “ml” characters. The earlier link in the thread is the correct one, namely:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
Here’s a thought.
Both Politicians and the Media are dependent on popularity for their survival, as a consequence they both look for already existing trends to leap in front of to give the appearance of leading and shaping what’s actually going on.
Given that they are essentially reactive to trends, they are a lagging indicator or metric of social trends.
Given that belief in man made global warming (climate change) has already peaked and is now diminishing. (various refs are available on this blog). It follows that at some point the politicians and the media will swap sides as a matter of survival, and those that don’t will end up unpopular and out of a job.
As evidence I would point to the recent shift in the Australian Liberal party from AGW endorsment to a more sceptical position. I.e the politicians are starting to jump to the new trend.
The media are starting to open up the debate, since climategate, the whole question of the validity of AGW has resurfaced.
Hardline politicians that are heavily invested are still preaching the old line. They are the ones most at risk of failing to capture the new trend.
Just a thought.
latitude (10:05:52) :
I really hope Steve has learned from the past interviews and is a lot more aggressive this time.
1) He isn’t up against an ‘opponent’
2) He has more time to develop his points.
3) The editors are sympathetic.
4) The watchword is ‘nuanced’ not ‘Robust’
OT
Christopher Booker and Richard North’s Telegraph expose of the IPCC boss’s mega conflicts of interest (full credit to John Mackie above) should be a sticky on this website. Period. Action this day, Anthony?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
John A (13:33:42) :
Robert Wykoff (13:51:20) :
I agree with both of you. It won’t matter much to Steve, but many will use his appearance on Fox as a mark against him, rightly or wrongly.
FWIW, when reflecting on media bias, one must take note of the fact that many (most?) MSM outlets admit to having exactly zero non-liberal reporters.
Yes, Fox is to the right of that “mean.”
(I have a relative in the TV biz at an international scale… glad I’m not!)
Why can’t people put OT stuff in the Tips thread???
I’m just going to wait until Bill Moyers decides to cover it.
America is hungry for someone to talk to them about what they see & feel about them.
Global Warming causes Global Cooling is as nauseating as it’s lame excuse tone sounds. We get the same impression from a kid who claims he wasn’t into the cookie jar while his hands, face and shirt are smeared with sugary stuff.
Steve needs to do no more than tell America what’s been going on, and let the Warming Agendists do thier chocolate-smeared dance for all the good that will do.
“”tallbloke (15:07:16) :””
I’ll correct that:
I hope that Steve has learned from the past interviews and is a lot more ‘robust’ this time.
DavePrime (11:17:57) :
I am looking forward to this interview. I think that FOX, having been put under pressure by the President’s ire, are making an effort to show the world that they are THE most legitimate news outlet out there. We are actually lucky that the Pres. lashed out at them. This predisposes FOX to look at ALL angles of an issue! (And having been shown that there IS indeed a bias out there, FOX seems to understand the complaints of being shut out made by many in the climate sciences….)
Way to go Pres. Obama. In being glaringly obvious in your prejudices, you may have just re-awoken the American Press!!
I have long held the view that extremists create their own opposition/backlash.
Is Steve M wearing black socks with shorts?
TerryBixler (10:11:17) :
Good to hear Steve is out educating the world, only Fox seems to be interested.
…and the internet. 🙂