Internews is an organization devoted to helping out people in areas not served by an independent media:
Internews is an international media development organization whose mission is to empower local media worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability to connect, and the means to make their voices heard.
This sounds like a laudable goal, but like many roads paved with good intentions…well, you know where that goes. In particular, this group has a curious idea of what “balanced” reporting means when it comes to global warming alarmism:
Climate change could be the biggest story of the twenty first century, affecting societies, economies and individuals on a grand scale. Equally enormous are the adjustments that will have to be made to our energy and transportation systems,economies and societies, if we are to mitigate climate change.
All journalists should understand the science of climate change – its causes, its controversies and its current and projected impacts. Start by doing your own research from established sources, such as reports from the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or from local scientific experts you trust.
Read and report on the latest research from peer-reviewed scientific journals, or at the very least from reputable popular science publications.
OK, so it seems to be a given to these people that global warming is a proven fact. I suppose that doesn’t make them all that different from much of the rest of the media, but then there is this bit of advice for aspiring journalists:
Avoid false balance. Some journalists, trying to be fair and balanced, report the views of climate change sceptics as a counterweight to climate change stories. But this can be a false balance if minority views are given equal prominence to well-accepted science. For example, an overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that average global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels and that human activity is a significant factor in this.
Of course it’s good to air all sorts of views if they are placed into context. So if you report climate change sceptics’ views, also describe their credentials and whether theirs is a minority opinion.
Oh, so balance is not balance when it is “false” balance, that being when skeptics are given anything approaching equal time without caveats and qualifications designed to make their statements suspect.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Carddan (13:43:31) : reply to quote
My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is not being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?
unquote.
Carddan, I keep asking the exact same question on all the alarmist blogs, green journalist blogs of newspapers, alarmist parliamentarians, and so on. I have NEVER received a reply. Not one. The fact that people here are replying to you shows me the difference between this blog and the alarmist camp.
For myself, I am open to any view that can prove itself, with the negative viewpoint also proved, and historical data also proved, and with all other theories not making any sense. I lean towards looking at all the input from all areas, including historical data from real people living at the time. For instance, the historical data on previous hot and cold periods does not support the AGW theory.
I also have looked at the geologists records from the rocks and earth records, going back BILLIONS of years, which also do not support the AGW theory.
Then you have the archaeologists, with their discoveries of cave drawings showing where animals used to live, and remnants of meals buried in tombs showing what grew in various areas, also disproves AGW theory.
Then there are the astrophysicists, people who are usually brilliant at maths, who look at data coming in from space and the effect of the sun, stars and moon on our system, offering a viable alternative to AGW theory.
Last but not least are the mathematicians and statisticians, who successfully demolished the hockey stick graphs and showed statistical errors in much of the research of the AGW camp.
So Carddan, perhaps you should start reading a bit more widely and then we might see you here more often actually becoming a sceptic yourself.
My impression of the people blogging here is that there are many that would change sides if you could show them sufficient proof.
That’s the essential problem with the AGW theory. Not enough proof.
Quote: Kenneth Slade (13:14:37) :
“It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world…..” – 1984.
Yes, Kenneth, the resemblance to 1984 is scary!
Who is financing this scam?
1. The Atomic (fission) Bomb came from national competition between warring nations in the 1930’s and 1940’s that produced the nuclear era of science during the Second World War.
2. The Hydrogen (fusion) Bomb came from national competition in the 1940’s and
1950’s that continued the nuclear era of science during the Cold War.
3. Rocketry for space travel came from national competition in the 1950’s –
1980’s (Remember Sputnik I on 4 Oct 1957? ) that started the Space Age of science during the Cold War.
4. Who is behind the Global Climate Warming Fears of the 1980’s – 2010’s ?? It obviously involves leaders of many different countries and organizations, such as Nobel Laureates Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri of the UN’s IPCC, Former Vice-President Al Gore, Norway’s Nobel Prize Committee, NASA, NAS and literally armies of consensus scientists.
Perhaps we will eventually know the answer. In Nature 407 (2000) 823-824] is this quote about the deep roots of Nazi science in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
“There is no way of denying that directors, scientists and research assistants in many biomedical Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes put themselves in the service of a criminal regime. They actively supported measures conflicting with human rights and exploited the opportunities to use science conducted beyond all morally acceptable limits for the benefit of their own research.”
On a happier note, for a humorous Season’s Greetings from a true friend of
science, see:
http://tinyurl.com/yfbgsjw
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Just watched the opening feature on the BBC flagship program Newsnight.
Good Old Auntie is spinning the weather is not climate meme for all it’s worth!
Going on about how weather models are subject to probability while the certainty of climate models are bastions of scientific certainty.
It’s so sad, coming as it does so quickly after the hatchet job surgically performed by Andrew Neil(l) on the Met Office, ex WWF activist, chief.
Wish that the BBC would just save licence payers money by redirecting its viewers to RealClimate!
They, at least, are saving money by showing Weather Charts on the Internet sans numbers and icons, relying instead on vague and prettily coloured maps of the UK- without keys!
Just like the Met Office actually.
Speak your weasel words as much as you wish, ignore the accuracy with which others, unseduced by your advocacy, told us what to expect months ago; you guys have blood on your hands.
People and animals have suffered because of your hubristic and consensus supported prejudice. Post-ClimateGate, are you still so uncritical of the evidence?
And I forgot to add, many brilliant meteorologists, independent ones like Piers Corbin, and others (usually retired so they can speak out in safety).
Alan Haile (13:17:55),
The BBC was in full on global warming denial mode this evening (btw, by denial I mean they are in denial of the cold around them).
First they started by telling us that we were too stupid to understand what was going on with the weather, then they moved on to “the climate is not the weather” meme and then ended once again with “people are too stupid to understand”.
Of course while all this was going on, the Met Office guy and the super brain from Oxford where not seriously pushed by the al beeb reporter. He posed a couple questions like how come you cant predict the weather yet can predict climate change, to which he then allowed the other two to answer without any follow up questions (like did any of your models predict any of the cooling we have seen to date, like the snows in April 09 or the cold snap we are in now).
Of course last night the Met Office guy they had on came out with “because of global warming this cold snap is not as bad as it would have been” when he was asked if the UK would set any new low temp records this winter.
The BBC is so committed to global warming ™ that they have become advocates and nothing more.
Mailman
And Carddan, further to the above, what I think is that the Earth is not a closed system, which appears to be the main fault with the AGW theory, the assumption that it is closed.
Actually, it has a very thin layer of atmosphere protecting us as we travel through space with our sun. All sorts of things arrive on earth, including magnetism from the sun, cosmic rays, and goodness knows what else, all of which could affect climate.
Internews, in its technology section, could report on the invention of a huge whaling vessel that’s capable of ramming a light, sleek, super-powered trimaran.
People need to know that stuff.
Alan Haile (13:17:55) : “Here is some ‘approved’ news from the BBC.”
Gotta love the BBC: “David Shukman reports on how one of the longest cold snaps for a generation, fits in with theories of a warming planet and global climate change [strange comma placement by the BBC, not me].”
FFS, what in the name of Number Watch would not somehow “fit in” with “theories of a warming planet”? If this was an average winter or another mild winter, they’d no doubt tell us these would “fit in” with global warming as well.
We need a few more like Andrew Neil at the Beeb!
Mailman (15:25:48) :
Alan Haile (13:17:55),
The BBC was in full on global warming denial mode this evening (btw, by denial I mean they are in denial of the cold around them).
You missed the 10 oclock news, the Met Office guy gave the definitive answer to the question ( what is climate ), the answer to this question from the horses mouth is 30 YEARS.
Carddan (13:43:31) :
@Carddan:
When the facts change, I will change my opinion.
But the facts — actual evidence, does not support the AGW greenhouse gas hypothesis. I can point to the missing greenhouse warming signature in the troposphere, the fact that the ice core data shows CO2 increases hundreds of years after the climate warms, etc.
I will also repeat that climate models do not produce facts and are not evidence. Opinion — expert or otherwise is not fact. Consensus is not an applicable scientific term.
Have you heard of ClimateGate? You do know the hockey stick is also invalid, don’t you?
Thank you
These guys are not advising would be journalists, this is a directive. My blood boils. Maby they should denounce me as a “global warmer”.
A question for you Carddan- do you support the journalistic values that underpin Internews?
Thank you everyone for your responses. I posted the same question, without the word “not”, on Climate Progress and had the following discussion:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/31/science-the-hottest-decade-ends-maunder-mininum-solar-cycle-24-global-warming/
Carddan says:
January 7, 2010 at 4:07 pm
My observation is that the prevailing opinion expressed on this website is that global warming is being caused by human activity. If this is an accurate assessment, I have two questions. To what extent do you believe you could be mistaken, and, what if anything would cause you to change your opinion?
[JR: The first question is ill-posed, since you haven’t defined it enough to answer. In any case, I focus on the scientific understanding not “opinion.” Were the scientific understanding to change, my “opinion” would change. In the specific case of human-caused global warming, that outcome is doubly unlikely because the preponderance of evidence — which is vast — links recent warming (which is unequivocal) to human activity and to falsify it you’d have to not only come up with an alternative explanation that would explain the unequivocal warming, but you’d also have to come up with a viable explanation for why human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases hadn’t caused the warming. Since you seem to hold an anti-scientific opinion, I will not bother asking you what would cause you to change it.]
Followed by : Carddan says:
January 7, 2010 at 4:41 pm
JR, thank you for your prompt response. In reference to your conviction of beliefs, I believe you are expressing that your opinions are rooted in science and that you have faith that the science is accurate. You are satisfied that science has proven recent warming is caused by human activity until “unproven”.
I do take strong exception to your belief that I have an unscientific opinion. I posed the identical question to another blog with the word “not” inserted before the word “caused”. I will say that I have much less confidence in the science than you do. Statistics and data can be manipulated to indicate many things and they frequently are by both sides in this discussion. I’m still searching, studying and exploring for the truth. I do not believe that mankind has come close to understanding the underlying physics of the universe or the ability to predict a mechanism as complex as global climate. To believe that the answers are already known is “unscientific” in my mind.
And yes, I will respond in a similar manner to that other website given the opportunity.
[JR: You sentence — To believe that the answers are already known is “unscientific” in my mind — is the classic loaded sentence of the anti-science crowd. They key element of what is “known” with high certainty is that if we take no action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions we will destroy a livable climate. The uncertainty really only arises as to whether the impacts will be imaginably catastrophic or unimaginably catastrophic.]
One side is sure they know, the other is not. I have always believed that wisest man understands he knows the least.
The prevailing opinion of most of the regular posters here is that there is no valid scientific evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor to climate change.
The fundamental premise of AGW is that CO2 is a green house gas (generally accepted by all). That the increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is due to human activity, (suspected but not demonstrated). There is equally valid reason to belive that the CO2 increase is a result of temperature increase rather than its cause.
That the increasing CO2 has a direct causal relationship with increasing global temperatures (ie if CO2 increases temperature will increase also as a direct result of the increasing CO2 concentration).
This is widely believed to be false. This assertion is based on mathematical models which are highly suspect, (have never been properly audited for methodology, (both math mathematical processes code logic and been validated), use hard coded assumptions that are not supportable, and use input data which is garbage. As a result the models and their output is meaningless and in no way provides any proof at all that temperature changes are due to CO2 increases or that the CO2 increases are due directly to human activity.
The scientific method demands an assumption that you might be wrong. As Einstein stated it only takes one valid data point the proves the conclusion impossible to toss the whole hypothesis in the garbage pail and go back to the beginning point and re-evaluate the whole chain of logic.
This is the fundamental difference between the AGW supporters and the “skeptics” The AGW supporters “know” they are right and will not even discuss the possibility that they are not. The Skeptics “think” they are right but are open to valid evidence that they are not.
The AGW supporters systematically suppress all discussion of their methods and assumptions, model codes and input data quality. Skeptics thrive on discussing all those possible modes of failure in a scientific hypothesis. By doing so the AGW supporters are violating the most fundamental rules of scientific method. As a result the points they raise as “proof” are not only not proof, but are not even science. It is more a sales pitch, with lots of claims but no supporting documentation.
Larry
Hotrod, I agree with you and many of the other answers given to my questions here. It is informative that at ClimateProgress, challenging their beliefs was called unscientific. On this site, challenging the beliefs brought forth a scientific discussion.
Carddan (16:02:07) :
I like your method, makes you think, and the…
…were spot on I think.
“[JR: The first question is ill-posed, […]Since you seem to hold an anti-scientific opinion, I will not bother asking you what would cause you to change it.]”
“Doesn’t compute.” You gotta love him. ROTFL.
@Carddan (16:02:07) :
Superbly well-phrased questions to good, old dependable JR.
You got him to respond without being banned and Twice! Well done!
I don’t know upon which side the Science will eventually settle but, and I’m only guessing here, it’ll likely favour the side with the best questions. Your questions are top drawer. I’ll watch with interest.
carrdan,
your little experiment by going on a pro-global warming site just shows how ideology trumps any facts you throw at them> plus the arrogance of this person is incredible and sadly the norm for the pro agw side in that you have to 100% disprove their hypothesis even though there has not been any conclusive proof that increased c02 will increase temperatures as the temperatures have gone down even though c02 has risen.
William Sears (14:07:00) :
They are so convinced that it is the “deniers” who are well funded by “big oil” that they will not even look at contrary evidence
It’s doubtful that “Internews” will ever discuss how the esteemed Climatic Research Unit at U East Anglia was supported by British Petroleum. In the 80s in particular a series of CRU contracts supplied BP’s Cold Regions Group with sea ice and navigation data used to exploit the very Arctic they claim is now melting. Could working for “Big Oil” be seen as evidence to the contrary?
Presumably working for BP compromises what the scientists at CRU have done – making their research a “minority view.” But CRU supplies the foundation for the UN’s IPCC Reports – and thus are given prime time coverage in a dying MSM.
Is it any wonder that rational minds find man made climate change an exercise in virtual extortion?
Sorry, but Internews’ politics sounds to religious dogmas.
royfomr, I doubt JR will let me back in. They don’t seem to like being challenged over there. The posters here demonstrated an exceptional ability to be open-minded and intelligent in their replies. I think I’ll just lurk here if they’ll have me.
But you people just don’t understand, “99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade”:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/blogs/99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
Note to selves, any field where 99% of members agree with each other is likely a field of sheep…
Report the majority view, and quash the minority, as if science was a political system. Job App point: The ideal Polyscience Journalist will sucessfully demonstrate the ability to appear impartial, while maintaining the politcally correct concensus reporting as ‘settled’ science.
Meanwhile, the Politically Correct AGW theory is Gored by an Iceberg, and the crew is playing taps on the deck while the lifeboats are burned to keep warm.
Ever have that sinking feeling?