All six parts of the hour-long special aired during prime time Sunday night on Fox News featuring Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are now online below. Both Phil Jones and Michael Mann ducked requests for interviews. I can perhaps understand Jones’ situation, since he has not been giving other interviews, but in Mann’s case he’s been on a media blitz writing op-eds for the Washington Post and giving interviews to dozens more. His bias, (or perhaps cowardice) is showing. If his work is so “robust”, why not defend himself in this venue?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike Ramsey (10:24:12) :
“Why should we think that such tactics are limited to just climate science? What other branches of science have been manipulated?”
That would be the ‘social sciences’ if you can call them science as they have been infiltrated by political correctness for decades.
“What are working scientist going to do to try to restore some level credibility to their field?”
We may be seeing some of that now in the hard sciences as they must be very uncomfortable with the manipulation or the peer review process. The social sciences are more about ideology than science so I don’t expect all that much from them.
Over the last five years you have about a 5 mm rise, i.e 10 mm/decade, 10 cm per century. Okay, maybe we’ve had a flat period. But even a doublng of that puts us at about the same rate as the previous centuries.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg
Mike Ramsey (10:41:06) : – The press is a controlled propoganda machine. The only media that is really free is the internet.
Light on the science, but far too many viewers would “tune out” if it were less light.
For those that say FOX is biased? lol ( small laugh, of pain)…we don’t have unbiased media in the US. I’m just happy that one of the major ones actually attempted to highlight why this is not settled science, and that there is a group think problem in a handful of gatekeepers.
Steve has vastly improved in his media presentations. Bravo!
Regarding the Fox special and the perceived bias. Can anyone point to any of the other networks that has run (or would run) a warming special that was as fair to the “other side” as Fox’s show? Also note that the special wasn’t run by the editorial section (Hannity, Beck, etc.)
The other “news” networks make it pretty clear where they stand on the issue, when they bother to cover it at all. With this hour long special it was tough to tell where the host stood. That’s a whole lot more “fair and balanced” than any other network will provide.
So Kudos to Fox and Steve and a big raspberry to Dr. Mann.
I cannot understand why people are so anti Fox. I would rate this as a surprisingly balanced documentary. If Mann et al declined to be interviewed, that is their problem. But this was balanced by pro warmists Strong, De Boer, Monbiot, Markey and others. The report didn’t seem to lean one way or the other, and if they did lean, it was subtle.
How much money do you suppose went into this?
http://soa.arcus.org/
State of the Arctic Conference in Fla. in March. More BS.
Check out their outreach video.
Hey! Might be a good place to find someone to place a bet.
Anyone think the greenpeace activist in segment 4 is worth listening to? I think most people can understand his argument.
Yeah! Fox news! Great job!
“Rupert Murdoch seems to be backing both horses on the climate news front.
Sky news UK is pushing AGW like it’s going out of fashion.”
Stations have to bring in money and accordingly feed the public with what is believable and agrees with their prejudices.
Mann’s bias showed the moment he opened his mouth about Sarah Palin. For him, evidently, climate is a partisan political issue. So it is — unfortunately so — but it’s just as well that he wears his bias on his sleeve. I’m sick and tired of those who pretend to be on a scientific high road but leave their political zipper down, obvious to all except perhaps themselves.
P Gosselin (11:04:39)
it is more than telling, that even a top IPCC official doesn’t quote official IPCC numbers but a huge exaggeration instead. Actually, he is damaging the reputatuon of his employer.
Dude .. has anyone noticed how this Yvo de boer guy looks just like Dr. Smith in Lost in Space? Dr. Smith was a serial liar and this guy’s eyes flutter and blink when he speaks of rising oceans etc .. all he needs is the robot in the background .. danger .. danger … anyhow no one will trust a guy who looks like Dr. Smith.
Exactly Richard – Markey is that smooth talking lefty that all the soft Gaia believers swoon over, male and female.
Rupert Murdoch said in an interview that he believed conflict is what people want on TV – they want to see both sides battling it out.
I thought that program achieved that very well – had it been on another channel no one would have accused it of being biased.
The program would have been an eye opener to all those aging lefty Democrats who are becoming more right wing as they age and find themselves watching Fox. 😉
If EPA can ban CO2 as a pollutant, on the basis that it is a greenhouse gas, shouldnt they ban water wapor as well?
I mean, clear logic says water wapor should be banned first?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
@ur momisugly richb313 (10:00:50) : – In tonight’s “Norwich Evening News” is a brief article about dangerous road conditions (global warming, anyone?) In it Chris Bell of Weatherquest based at the UEA said there was uncertainty over the coming days. “It gets interesting from Thursday: it could be cloudy with a risk of sleet or snow, but one of the computer models brings rain in and leaves it milder for Christmas, while another model keeps us on the colder side”
He must be using very different computer models to the Met Office et all!!
In a further article it is reported that a Norfolk Euro MP held a “beach barbecue” in the snow outside the UEA CRU, to protest at the science of man made climate change. But Neil Adger, Professor of environmental sciences said “They have got it all wrong. They mix up the climate with the weather. The science produced at the UEA is sound, and ties in with science from around the world – climate change is real and experienced by all of us”
Shame there isn’t a real beach at the UEA – we could go there and pull their heads out of the sand…
Scott (10:33:19) :
Actually that’s not true. I did a detailed “audit” of an episode of the Sandy Berger saga, to prove as I thought Fox’s bias. Well major fact for major fact all the main US newspapers (NYT WaPo) had the same content. Fox actually had longer more complex articles, with more information. What they did have was that the NYT didn’t were facts that made Berger look ridiculous (he hid documents in his pants). I like Berger and am sorry he looked ridiculous, but I don’t see why this was “censored”.
So actually you got a BETTER picture of what happened from Fox.
I can see Rachel’s lip curling at the very thought of interviewing the moral troglodytes who, for silver in hand, pretend to have found something worthy of debate here.
Even though they didn’t show them enough, McIntyre and McKittrick were really good. Contrasted with the emails, it painted a nice picture.
Here is my problem… a decade ago I said that the temperature would not go up any further then it has and then all these people who are going nuts about CO2 will see the light… It has been a decade and they have not seen the light… Now I can say in another decade from now they will see the light… But I am not going to assume that anymore. From now on I am on the offensive, I am tired of people grabbing hold of a belief system that is not Validated yet. Now, if in 10 years the hypothesis ( which is all CO2 caused warming is ) does prove to be correct then I will apologize, heck I will be the first in line to pay for the increase in taxes needed to fix the problem… However the science does not add up… So I doubt ( though one never knows ) that I will be doing that.
I will not wait any longer, this has got to stop and I will tell as many people as I can as often as I can to look at the science. Not simply be spoon fed the answers.
Good Job Fox, right on.
OT but well worth watching:-
For those who really want to know what may be in store as regards climate change – pour a stiff whisky and have a look at this :
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists
Its a research lecture from those seriously good research physicist at CERN. Looks like they think that we are about to have a mini ice age called a Maunder minimum caused by the disappearance of sunspots.
Would it be possible to make the volume any louder, to completely destroy my speakers?
What idiot transferred this to their PC? Retard.
How difficult is it to NORMALISE the volume? Asshole.
Although Fox does make an attempt (a very modest attempt) at “balance”, its journalistic slant is clearly conservative. To deny that obvious fact is to lose credibility. I would not care to see Fox introduce any more balance to their reporting until their media competitors introduce at least SOME balance to their own editorial policies. Even when you throw Fox with its enormous viewership into the mix with the other major news media outlets, the overall effect remains biased both to the political “left” and in the pro-AGW direction. Although it should not be so, political persuasion and inclination to accept or reject AGW without understanding the science is quite clearly in evidence among the general public.
“Here is my problem… a decade ago I said that the temperature would not go up any further then it has and then all these people who are going nuts about CO2 will see the light… It has been a decade and they have not seen the light…”
Some people never see the light. That’s because they’re blind.
CNN ran “Planet in Peril” opposite the Fox News report. Hansen was on there saying they knew precisely what the climate sensitivity was BECAUSE of ice core measurements going back 700,000 years.
While I’m willing to accept the ice cores show the relative amounts of CO2 vs. temperature over history. The question I have is HOW DO THEY KNOW it was CO2 driving temperatures? Perhaps it was temperatures driving CO2 levels through ocean outgassing? With an external force (orbit, sun, etc.) driving temperature.
Is the global warming theory flawed because of a simple incorrect assumption?