I guess Media Matters wasn’t enough? Interesting that they specifically target Fox News via the “Rupert Murdoch” mention. But I’d take their advice and send them alerts, there’s plenty of misrepresentations in the media daily:
Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming. Send alerts to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.
From the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Promoting Climate Science for the Public Good
See our national advertising campaign
For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. It’s made our lives more productive and efficient. Science has brought us many of the conveniences we take for granted in our day-to-day lives.
But recently, science, and especially climate science, has become a political football. Organized interests seeking to delay desperately needed actions to reduce heat-trapping emissions have manufactured controversies and misrepresented the facts.
Such tactics are meant to sow confusion and lull the public into a dangerous complacency. But we will not let those who deny and distort climate science succeed.
UCS is leading a campaign to allow the voices of climate scientists to be heard and to educate the public about the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. To accomplish this, we are taking a number of steps, including the following:
- Working with climate scientists from around the country to disprove fallacies and educate the public about the real facts on global warming.
- Developing and distributing clear, accessible information to help the media and the public understand the science behind our changing climate.
- Building American pride in the dedicated researchers who are working to understand and adapt to the consequences of our changing climate.
- Partnering with Americans from all walks of life to set the record straight on global warming pollution and the urgent need to rein it in.
What You Can Do
- Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming. Send alerts to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.
- If you are a scientist, we have many ways that you can get involved. Learn more by contacting Jean Sideris at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org
- Tell Rupert Murdoch: Get the Facts Straight. Send a message today.
============================
h/t to WUWT reader DocattheAutopsy
Since when is global warming a science ? Ever heard about concerned scientists before ? Of course you heard about scientists and about concerned people , but what has concern to do with science ? Since when is global warming a concern ? What is a dedicated researcher ? Dedication has to do with a belief in a certain cause or a real focus towards a certain mission . Should a researcher be prejudiced ? He should be willing to face the facts , like you Anthony !
Send them the IPCC reports and some of MM’s papers.
“For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. It’s made our lives more productive and efficient. Science has brought us many of the conveniences we take for granted in our day-to-day lives.”
Some might argue that it is the application of science (through engineering) that really impacts our lives and this can be both positive and negative. As a cruel example, the impact of the use of atomic weapons can be argued as both good or evil, depending on whether one was friend or foe. (I personally am thankful for atomic weapons because I believe it helped end the war in the Pacific and my father likely would have been killed in a japan invasion.) I believe the application of climate science is similar.
If a scientist was hired to do climate research, then that scientist might activily promote AGWand even (gasp) exagerate a little. On the other hand, if one is poor and can no longer afford housing, energy or food because of some misapplication of climate belief, then that is bad at least for those poor who are materially disadvantaged.
Thank you Joe and Anthony-that is a great idea….
Joe Bastardi says:
August 25, 2010 at 10:00 am
H eh, Anthony, what do you say we start our own group..
Where do we sign up? 🙂
‘Climate change’ is a spin produced by the Bush White House to make the issue sound less alarming to the Public than Global Warming.
We must insist Alarmists stick with ‘Global Warming’. Charge them with supporting for Bush’s attempt to minimise the issue if they try to use weather as evidence for ‘Climate Change’.
The distortion issue is indeed serious. My local paper has produced many Global Warming news articles over the years. I used to fact-check them against the original peer-reviewed science. I gave up fact-checking at the fiftieth report that misrepresented the original articles. All fifty errors uniformly supported the paper’s bias toward warmist agenda.
Can we trust the Union of Concernerned Scientists to get the record straight if it does not support their agenda? I’d love to be proven wrong, but I fear not.
“But we will not let those who deny and distort climate science succeed.”
Aw, come on guys, say what you really feel. Just let it out. It’ll feel much better – I promise. Go on, submit to your inner self, that’s it… “Those f@ur momisugly$%ing deniers – we ought to round the f#*#ers up and _______ the lot of them.” There you go, how does that feel? Much better!
“The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT — the original “union” — sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century “hate-America left”); Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: “We want capitalism to come to an end.”
“Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War — a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.
UCS continues to involve itself in issues where scientific credentials carry little weight. For example, the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of “rigorous scientific analysis.”
An early petition from UCS argues: “A new ethic is required — a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth… This ethic must motivate a great movement.” So activists with lab coats are now presuming to instruct us on matters of ethics and politics. ”
…
“In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of “global warming” and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that “the scientific community has reached a consensus.” But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called “consensus” was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a “deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation.”
…
“In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. “It is now abundantly clear,” the group wrote, “that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages.” Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing. ”
Read it all:
http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists
Here is a copy of the email I sent to Aaron.
Aaron,
I want to alert you to a misreprensentation about Global Warming on
your own website!!!
Your website says:
“Organized interests seeking to delay desperately needed actions to
reduce heat-trapping emissions have manufactured controversies and
misrepresented the facts.”
There is no such thing as “heat trapping emissions”!! If there is,
would they work better than the fiberglass insulation in the walls of
my home? Heck, if emissions can “trap heat”, I want some of them to
lower my heating and cooling bills!
I look forward to seeing the correction to your website.
Kindest regards,
“REPLY: Oh this could be fun – Anthony”
I concur. Where better to learn about the Catlin expedition’s hilarious but dodgy ‘realtime biotelemetry data’ ploy? Fooling the kids no less…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/08/catlin-ice-survey-website-recycles-biotelemetry-data/
The recycling of stories and photograhs on the Wilkins ice shelf.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/
The latest rice story cock up (Anthony provides the correction)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/bbc-to-issue-correction-on-rice-yields-story/
The Times newspaper making up firsts on the accessibility of the Northeast Passage as a shipping lane.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/london-times-forced-to-recant-ads-touting-ne-passage/
and other favourites?
WUWT is way ahead of this so called ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’. Hey maybe they can team up?
No?
just a thought…
wow. how blatantly orwellian.
i like your idea anthony, but it is pointless to try and correct the media.
I’ve sent 3 in so far, plan to send several more over the next few days. Accidentally sent my phone number that’s in my automatic signature block on one. Lets see if they call me 😀
I meant to add that i sent these 3 articles all in separate emails. Nothing more fun than spamming a new message for each link
http://news.ufl.edu/2010/08/24/global-warming-3/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100821/ap_on_bi_ge/un_un_carbon_cutting_scheme#%20reports
http://www.financialpost.com/news/Cuts+jeopardizing+quality+Canada+weather+service+report/3429657/story.html#ixzz0xSiB3vLH
Anthony, it’s fun now!
The opposite of skeptic is gullible.
Eco-Hoaxes and the Decline of the MSM / The Internet has freed us from MSM eco hoax campaigns
What do Alar, DDT, and CFCs have in common? All three modern miracles were taken from humanity based on hoaxes. Prior to the internet the MSM ran rough shod over science and popular opinion. The MSM uncritically told us that DDT was bad, that CFCs were ‘depleting’ the ozone layer, and that Alar was poisoning our apples.
America was once teeming with bedbugs and mosquitoes. These mosquitoes carried dengue fever, (life threatening and incurable,) malaria, (life threatening and incurable,) yellow fever, West Nile Virus, and Equine Encephalitis. DDT ended the mosquito’s rein of terror. DDT is a highly stable and inert miracle compound. It has no documented affects on any wildlife whatsoever. But DDT kills mosquitos and bed bugs. Not one person ever went to the hospital suffering from DDT poisoning, ever. Not one animal ever died due to DDT. Only the life threatening mosquitoes and the dreaded bed bugs were killed.
Alar was said to be bad for us because Hollywood actresses who played movie parts as farmer’s wives went to Washington and claimed it was. The MSM treated these script readers as prophets enlightening the unwashed masses.
CFCs are stable and inert compounds. CFCs allowed for refrigeration and freezing making feeding humanity cheaper and safer. But the MSM told us that the magic CFC molecule was not cool. The MSM calmly explained to us that long before man flew a heavier than air machine, that CFCs had mastered the feat. The magic CFC molecule is 4 times heavier than air yet it is able to rise as high as helium filled weather balloons!
The ozone layer was something akin to a big bag of flour in the sky we were told. And CFCs magically floated up and cut the bag of Ozone flour. The bag of Ozone flour was “depleted.” And the hoax lived happily ever after.
It did not matter that new ozone is created everyday by the sun. It did not matter that CFCs have never been scientifically shown to damage ozone in the lab or in the sky. It did not matter that CFC molecules are 4 times heavier than air. Mankind uses Saturn rockets and helium filled weather balloons to reach the ozone layer. The magic CFC molecule hitches a ride on a lie. Recently, the theory of ozone ‘depletion’ by CFCs has been radically disemboweled. All the scientists who were so sure of the dogma are scratching their heads and going back to the drawing board.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/
The Globalony eco hoax is the latest in a long line of junk science scams whose only purpose and intent seems to be dismantling the most successful civilization on earth. Globalony is nothing more than a national IQ test. More precisely, the scam of global warming is a man made hoax. The hoax stands as a proxy to measure the MSM’s ability to make us believe the laughably false. Thanks to the internet, the environmental left’s eco hoaxes are coming home to roost. The internet is an environmental threat to hoaxes, scams, and frauds. Fraudulent science, hoaxes, and the con men that push them are becoming the endangered species. Extinction will be a welcome development.
1) “disprove fallacies”
A statement which implies criticisms are inherently wrong.
2) “Developing and distributing clear, accessible information to help the media and the public understand the science behind our changing climate”
A statement of intent to control the spread, manner and intent of information.
3) “Building American pride”
Shallow demagoguery
4) “Partnering with Americans from all walks of life”
Playing the class-race card.
5) “to set the record straight on global warming pollution”
Implying there is a correct answer, and opinion must be bent to it
6) “and the urgent need to rein it in.”
Creating anxiety around the issue to subjugate logic, reason and discussion.
7) “Union of Concerned Scientists[sic]”
No longer an applicable label.
I find very few stories in the SF Chronicle about global warming anymore. None today. Climate change is so yesterday. The green press seems to have shifted its attention pesticides and chemical phobias.
Would somebody please tell the UCS that this is not North Korea and Cuba? (Maybe I will). Their efforts at censoring/silencing what I call the “opposition party line” here is anything but characteristic of the democracy which we are supposed to be. The American people have the right to hear the side of the scientific story that the UCS does not want them to hear. In this way, the American people can make up their own mind about the subject of climate change irregardless of what the UCS and Al Gore want them to believe. That is how things are done in a democracy whether UCS and Al Gore like it or not.
This reminds me of that list the Obama administration was putting together–you know, the one where you were encouraged to notify them about your neighbor’s questionable behavior. I preempted the process and sent in my own personal information and encouraged all my friends to do the same. It wasn’t long after that they took the site down. I’m hoping they were being overwhelmed with people submitting their own “un-American” behavior.
Wow, The Union of
Climate BedwettersConcerned “Scientists” has a gold mine of disinformation, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods right on their own website: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/understanding-urgency-climate-change.htmlSome real whoppers include:
“if we fail to reduce heat-trapping emissions, we will cross a threshold, and the changes in our world will be irreversible.”
Ah yes, the old “tipping point” meme. Never fails to amuse.
“Releasing carbon into the atmosphere is sort of like filling a water balloon from an outdoor faucet.”
False, misleading analogy. The atmosphere is nothing whatsoever like a balloon.
“Like the swollen water balloon, the atmosphere is overloaded.” (with “carbon”)
So, the atmosphere is ready to explode then, right?
“a ton of CO2 emissions today traps more heat than it would have fifty years ago.”
Really? So is that why temperatures have basically been in stall mode the past decade?
“recent research indicates that Earth’s climate is changing more quickly than scientists had projected just a few years ago.”
Sure. It’s worse than we thought. Changing how, exactly? I thought you said warming, but now you’re saying “it’s changing”. Make up your minds.
“If we continue along the high emissions path, projections show that we risk locking in a rise of 3.6 to 9.9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.”
Projections? Please. They’re based on models, not on reality.
And finally, this howler:
“Climate change carries serious consequences both for humans and for ecosystems. This is a crisis that will affect our food, our national security, our water, our ability to live where we choose, and other basic human needs. Whether and how we address global warming is not a question of science, it’s a question of values.”
What a load of alarmist bollocks. Values? How about starting with telling the truth?
Warmistas should know by now, that once you start firing tracers to the other side that they have the nasty habit of working both ways.
This is not a conspiracy, it is a mechanical conspiracy of all those who share minuscule spirits, scared to death at the possibility that their smallness and nothingness may be discovered.
YOU ARE WRONG KIDS, we always knew who you are, it was just your Mommy and Daddy’s fault not to tell it to you when they had to.
Given their history and membership, is the true meaning of the acronym UCS – “Union of Covert Soviets”? Do they have more affinity to Lysenko than Einstein?
Any organization with Union in its name likely is guided by some sort of variation of early 20th century socialist ideology.
If they are truly interested in disproving fallacies, how about they start with the following:
1. Disprove the fallacy that a 0.5 degree temperature anomoly is “unprecidented”
2. Disprove the fallacy that the manmade fraction of a fairly insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere can have a significant impact on global climate.
3. Disprove the fallacy that CO2 is the one and only primary driver of climate change.
I can easily come up with many more fallacies that they should be very eager to try to disprove, but those 3 would be a great start!