Steven Schneider's 1992 argument against balance in science reporting

Roger Tattersall, aka “Tallbloke” has an old story worth re-telling today in the “false balance” arguments being made about my appearance on PBS. Its’ all part of a strategy. He writes:

Nice old cutting this, from the ‘Boston Sunday Globe’ 31 May 1992. Click for the full size image, sorry for the poor quality, but it is legible. The attempt to remove dissenting voices from the media has been in full swing for 20 years. Lewdandorky’s attempt to get man made global warming sceptics written off as ‘lunar landing deniers’ is just another route to the same goal. These people are unable to convince the public via fair open debate with their intellectual opponents.

It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as if it were a question of balance. Given the distribution of views, with groups like the National Academy of Science expressing strong scientific concern, it is irresponsible to give equal time to a few people standing out in left field.

T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.

-Stephen H Schneider 1992-

Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says in comments there:

That is a scan I originally linked to in my JunkScience guest article “In Case of Heart[land] Attack, Break Glass” (7th paragraph there), and in my comment here which is within the comments section of my own guest post at WUWT about ‘the other major problem’ with the Lewandowsky paper.

I also showed it in the comment I placed at the PBS NewsHour to predict the AGW backlash Watts was going to get:

My heartfelt hat tip goes to Australia’s Brenton Groves for supplying me with that scan and the larger “Racing to an environmental precipice: Fear of future on deteriorating planet sets agenda for Rio de Janeiro summit” May 31, 1992 Boston Globe article containing it.

I believe there was a Gore / Schneider / Gelbspan connection at the beginning of it all. Consider that in September of 1992, Schneider said the following in a Discover magazine “Can We Repair the Air?”article (8th paragraph): “The White House, some business groups, and a few contrary-minded scientists had always argued that the possibility of a nasty greenhouse effect was too uncertain to justify spending billions of dollars to fix it. They (as the tobacco industry has done for decades with smoking) called instead for further studies. …” ( )

My thanks to you for spreading the word of how this is a 20 year boilerplate smear.

It is 3 simple talking points: “settled science” / “corrupt skeptics operating in a parallel manner to old tobacco industry shills” / “the media is not obligated to give skeptics equal balance because of the first two points”.

Ross Gelbspan consolidated this 3-point mantra into the successful smear it became after late 1995. The story must be told far and wide, and I and can use all the help I can get in telling it.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
john robertson

RICO keeps coming to mind.

Richard Keen

Tallbloke, that’s a great find! This beats the Boykoff Bros.1992 “balance as bias” paper by 12 years. That paper was written up by a group that calls itself FAIR (as opposed to cloudy?) ….
Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias
Creating controversy where science finds consensus
By Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff
also at Academic Search…
so this nonsense actually got published. No doubt Naomi Oreskes was a “peer” reviewer.
In alphabet soup, FAIR is so-called “Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting”, “challenging media bias and censorship since 1986”. From the article:
A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling “both” sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias.
So this FAIR group, who challenges media censorship, supports censoring “a small group of global warming skeptics (who) have their views greatly amplified.”
So, we have…
Balance is Bias. – Boykoff Brothers, 2004
War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. – Big Brother, 1984

David Ball

Great find Tallbloke !! Have been watching this go on for a long time. I am confident that the comments on the PBS blog will actually hurt the CAGW folks. The average person will find the venomous hatred repugnant.

David Ball

Note the author of this piece.

Pat Frank

Roger, do you have any insight as to why Gelbspan’s ideas were so influential? Was it just right idea, right time, for a bunch of NGOs looking for a hook? Or what?

Richard Keen

Yep, settled science. This is the same Schneider who published the noveau ice age classis, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”
that concluded that aerosols – soot et al. – would be “sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
So, if the science is settled, why do we pay 2.5 billion a year for more of this science? And why do we pay these guys handsome salaries for 40 years to change their minds?

David Ross

Schneider in his ice-age phase (the Hansen aerosol link)

Middlesboro Daily News – Apr 3, 1972,111029&dq=stephen-schneider+ice-age&hl=en

Schneider’s tipping point

The Free Lance-Star – Mar 10, 1979,1506886&dq=stephen-schneider+ice-age&hl=en
Over 100 years, “there’ll be extreme periods of drought and wet, and warm and dry,” said Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research at Silver Springs, Md. “But the overall global climate will drift up and down., a degree or two over a period of centuries to thousands of years—unless humans do something that makes it change more rapidly.”


So. PBS is biased. Against CAGW.

Pull the other one, it has bells on.
(It was never about the science, it was always about power and control. See Earth Day 1970. From. Day. One.)

Here are a few more quotations, excerpted from
Now seriously, do you really think this is all about global warming?
Is it not possible that CAGW alarmism is just a smokescreen?
It must be obvious by now, even to the most stupid of warmists, that the world is no longer warming, and has not been warming for 10-15 years..
And the warmists are not all stupid, so what are they up to?
In their own words:
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
-Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
-Professor Maurice King
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
-Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
-Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

Déjà vu
Feb 17, 1992

“What does it mean to redefine one’s relationship to the sky? What will it do to our children’s outlook on life we have to teach them to be afraid to look up?
–Senator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
The world now knows that danger is shining through the sky. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer–our shield against the sun’s hazardous ultraviolet rays–is being eaten away by man-made chemicals far faster than any scientist had predicted. No longer is the threat just to our future; the threat is here and now. Ground zero is not just the South Pole anymore; ozone holes could soon open over heavily populated regions in the northern hemisphere as well as the southern. This unprecedented assault on the planet’s life-support system could have horrendous long-term effects on human health, animal life, the plants that support the food chain and just about every other strand that makes up the delicate web of nature. And it is too late to prevent the damage, which will worsen for years to come. The best the world can hope for is to stabilize ozone loss soon after the turn of the century.
If any doubters remain, their ranks dwindled last week. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with scientists from several institutions, announced startling findings from atmospheric studies done by a modified spy-plane and an orbiting satellite. As the two craft crossed the northern skies last month, they discovered record-high concentrations of chlorine monoxide (CIO), a chemical by-product of the chlorofluoro-carbons (CFCs) known to be the chief agents of ozone destruction.
Although the results were preliminary, they were so disturbing that NASA went public a month earlier than planned, well before the investigation could be completed. Previous studies had already shown that ozone levels have declined 4% to 8% over the northern hemisphere in the past decade. But the latest data imply that the ozone layer over some regions, including the northernmost parts of the U.S., Canada, Europe and Russia, could be temporarily depleted in the late winter and early spring by as much as 40%. That would be almost as bad as the 50% ozone loss recorded over Antarctica. If a huge northern ozone hole does not in fact open up in 1992, it could easily do so a year or two later. Says Michael Kurylo, NASA’s manager of upper-atmosphere research: “Everybody should be alarmed about this. It’s far worse than we thought.”

It is tempting to forget or ignore the transgressions of ourselves and others when we are in general agreement with them. My experience shows that any time anyone’s faith is challenged or is perceived to be, he strikes out. All to often that strike is as ill conceived or as biased as that to which he objects. All this social climate nonsense is all to reminiscent of the cold war, modern American politics and the ongoing squabbling within and among religions. As I recall the recent noise from the “post modern” folks is not unlike this only in slightly politer terms. You can find some excellent parallels in the NM’s The Prince too. Nothing new under the sun only the means of doing “evil” to those of a different opinion.


The narrative was always there (once they got passed the 2nd coming of the Ice Age), even before they had the science, which, when it came was, of course, conducted to verify the narrative.
Someone with the knowledge and stomach to do so should take the ten most influential warmist papers and audit them for confirmation bias. I’m guessing it wouldn’t take much to expose the whole sorry affair for what it is: religious conviction dressed up as rational, objective research that affirms the need for governments to tightly control all economic activity.

Anthony, according to the cutting it was Al Gore that said the second para about “feeling angry towards those who exaggerate uncertainty” and not Schneider.


But, but……..1992 was 20 years ago. Aren’t we supposed to be all dead now?


“In 40 years, he [Robert Balling] said, China alone will burn about 50 percent more coal.”
After 20 years China is burning close to 300% more coal. And adding another 1.2 GW of coal-fired power plant every week.

Chris B

And that was only 15 years after we were threatened with a new Ice Age due to the Global Cooling of the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, complete with the threat of food shortages, according to the CIA’s summary of the leading climate science of the day.

John V. Wright

Hats off to Tallbloke for turning this up and also to Allan Macrae, in these responses, for providing those chilling quotes from the left wing conspirators whose purpose is so clearly expressed within them.
The penetration into Western society of The Plan is deep and depends on the infiltration and coercion of the media for it to succeed. The collapse of journalistic enquiry and integrity at the BBC is one if it’s greatest successes – indeed, senior staff at the BBC have produced statements on air saying it is not necessary to report the CAGW debate in a balanced way, statements that mirror the quote from Schneider 20 years ago.
This is why Anthony’s admirable appearance on PBS has produced such a hysterical, hate-filled reaction. For a brief moment, they lost control of a major media organisation. Even worse, they sense that it may be a bellwether that The Plan is faltering.
Anthony’s blog, Jo Nova and others, Andrew Bolt – one of the fearless journalists who works for truth and enquiry – those from all walks of life who contribute to these responses and pro-actively debate the issues at all levels…..these are the things that give us hope that the earth will return to the scientific method.


“T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.”
-Stephen H Schneider 1992-
If I only express my uncertainty, would that deflect the anger.
I’m not sure were the anger is coming from:
The exaggeration, or the uncertainty.
I don’t do the former, and not because it is so easy to falsify.

Crispin in Waterloo

I hope everyone realizes that the UN Foundation mentioned above is not part of the United Nations. It is directly responsible to the State Department.
It has a UN-like logo but does what the Secretary of State wishes. For example the GACC is Hillary’s initiative to assist and improve women’s health through disseminating improved cooking stoves.
The opinions of its head are not UN policies and may have a very different agenda from one President to the next.

I couldn’t agree with the sentiment of this article more, nor could I disagree with its application less. I hate it when news agencies present facts and fallacies as if both are equally valid. They are not. News agencies should present facts and only facts.
The problem is fallacies sell papers, and fr***s manipulate reporters to present fallacies.
This is one of my pet peeves. Fr***ulent economists have been doing it for nearly a century, and as a result our economy is about to collapse when the greatest debt bubble in history pops. The sad but true fact of our lives is the fr***s in all facets of our life have won. They’ve gotten rich by aligning with the politicians and looting the rest of us.
I used to believe fighting the fr***s on global warming was a pivotal issue. Now I realize it’s worthless. They can’t steal our wealth and send it overseas. We have no wealth left to steal. The plutocrats who control the Fed have already stolen everything from us but the kitchen sink, and Bernanke is going to steal that from us with QE3. This debate has become academic in the most trivial sense.


“telling “both” sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias.”
Well. DOH !!
One side produces real information.
The other side, alarmism, backed by very little real information.
So yes, telling both sides is DEFINITELY “informational bias”


And what about all those 5,000,000 “climate” refugees.. Can anyone name just one ????
Down here, we have lots moving from south to Queensland, in a northerly direction….. to warmer climes !!
Mind you, I suspect that in a few years, those in the northern parts of the NH may very well be needing to travel south also to warmer climes. They will not be able to afford to heat their houses in winter, even if electricity is available.


good find! It sets an interesting context for a lot of matters in the past 20 years.
fyi, The last quotation, according to the article, was from then-Senator Al Gore, not from Schneider:

“T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.” — Senator Al Gore, 1992 —


I reckon nothing of interest happened in the Arctic this summer.
REPLY: I reckon you are incapable of using the scroll bar on the front page of WUWT – Anthony


AndyG55 said:

One side produces real information.
The other side, alarmism, backed by very little real information.
So yes, telling both sides is DEFINITELY “informational bias”

I thought they called it denial.


AndyG55 says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:14 pm

And what about all those 5,000,000 “climate” refugees.. Can anyone name just one ????
Down here, we have lots moving from south to Queensland, in a northerly direction….. to warmer climes !!
Mind you, I suspect that in a few years, those in the northern parts of the NH may very well be needing to travel south also to warmer climes. They will not be able to afford to heat their houses in winter, even if electricity is available.

I am one of those. We are moving to the Queensland tropics this weekend, in fact. Sydney is getting colder and colder. When we arrived in 2001, we had lovely hot summers. These last few summers have been pretty dismal, and the winters bitter (down to 4C at times, even near the coast).
I’m off to keep warm for the next decade or two as the world cools off a bit, through what I strongly believe is a natural cycle.

Pat Frank says:
September 19, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Roger, do you have any insight as to why Gelbspan’s ideas were so influential? Was it just right idea, right time, for a bunch of NGOs looking for a hook? Or what?

Gelbspan is a shameless liar and self promoter. He described himself as a “Pulitzer prize winning author” on the sleeve notes of his own book. It’s a lie. The Pulitzer prize committee has confirmed he never received it.
It looks like Gore passed him the infamous memo from a coal company from which a closely clipped quote was mined about repositioning man made climate change as theory rather than fact. It seems this is where the whole ‘fossil fuel industry shills’ smear campaign took off.
The second half of the quote in my piece is actually from Gore according to the Gelbspan piece. I made an error attributing both statements to Schneider. It was Gore who said:
“[T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.
Notice how Gelbspan neatly equates human impact with the whole of global warming in the middle of this quote.
We all know the reliability of Gore’s scientific judgement regarding evidence for human impact on ‘global warming’, and it seems that Gelbspan made his own, and no doubt found it paid well to keep pushing the theme.
Gore also had a grudge against S. Fred Singer because Singer published a paper in ’92 that he had co-authored with Roger Revelle (one of Gore’s mentors) shortly before Revelle’s death in ’91. In the paper, they said it was too early to rush into action on mitigation because more research was required before vast sums of money were spent.

More on the Revelle – Singer – Gore connection here:
Be sure to read the link at the end of the intro paragraph too.

By the way, if anyone on the mod team wants to grab an improved image of the Boston Globe story to replace the murky jpg with it’s here:

A Lovell

More quotes from politically motivated CAGWers.
As Pascal Bruckner says in his article ‘The Ideology of Catastrophe’, ‘Catastrophe is not their fear, it is their joy.’


@Jer0me says:
“Sydney is getting colder and colder. When we arrived in 2001, we had lovely hot summers. These last few summers have been pretty dismal, and the winters bitter (down to 4C at times, even near the coast). ”
I’m in Newy, used to live in Sydney. I remember when young spending a LOT of the October holidays down the beach. Last few years have been a real wash in that regard 🙁
Oh how I wish for a warmer summer than the last few. !!!


This once again brings up a disconnect I’ve been thinking about: When the first George Bush said global warming required more study, they went into shrieking hysterics over it. Yet we are constantly hearing calls from them, for More Study!
And when new research increasingly shows things happening which are in direct contradiction to what they claimed would happen, it is ignored or demonized…

A Lovell says: September 20, 2012 at 12:09 am
More quotes from politically motivated CAGWers.
Thank you A. Lovell – well worth reading, along with
I really dislike conspiracy theories, but the above references provide overwhelming evidence, in the words of the co-conspirators, of their objectives, strategies and tactics.
Their objective is political power; global warming alarmism is their strategy; and viciously smearing any dissenters and enforcing media bias are their “green-shirt” tactics.
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.
The extremists have obviously succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Leading scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and many use aliases for fear of retaliation.
When this worm turns, and it will, we can expect the RICO (anti-racketeering) laws will be put to good use.
As we confidently stated in 2002 at
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist “
Earth has not warmed for 10-15 years. Continued absence of global warming or global cooling will finally put an end to global warming hysteria, after trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered…. and then the wheels of justice will begin to turn… Watch for early signs of climate rats leaving their sinking ship.
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.


Ps: The URBAN land temp made have been trending upwards in the NH,
.. but it sure hasn’t done much down here !!!
I suspect that if urban effects were taken properly into accoun the trend would already be well downwards.
I sure hope we DO get some real global warming soon, because the alternative will be a world wide DISASTER !!!


Mods, first line made = may
darn typos !!!

Regarding the above reference to Quantitative Easing in the USA (it is also happening with the Euro, the Yen and the Pound), please see
From memory:
The US Monetary Base (the “Base”) is (more or less) the amount of USA dollars printed and in circulation. The Base took over 200 years to reach ~$880 billion, and then just a few months to double, starting in late 2008. The Base now sits at about $2.7 trillion, about three times what it was in mid-2008.


Allan Macrae~ Thank you for the link to Green Agenda. I’ve added it to my list… I have a Climate Change Resource Page, which I created on another site (heavily populated by True Believers), and every bit of Skeptical ammo I can find, goes onto the list of links there.


Allan MacRae says:
September 20, 2012 at 1:58 am
Now that’s a genuine hockey stick, and scary!!


Anthony and Tallbloke:
The BBC has an official policy of providing biased reporting of AGW and the stated reason for the policy is precisely the argument presented by Schneider in the 1990s.


Nice work, slander the dead with a lie for a headline. What a slimeball you are. You have to have a seriously warped world view to think that “don’t promote crank viewpoints” is an “argument against balance in science reporting”.


Sorry. I forgot to provide the link to the BBC’s explanation of its policy. It is


Moderator, my reply to DC seems to have gone in the bin. Please retrieve it. Richard

Keith AB

DC says:
September 20, 2012 at 2:40 am (Edit)
Nice work, slander the dead with a lie for a headline. What a slimeball you are. You have to have a seriously warped world view to think that “don’t promote crank viewpoints” is an “argument against balance in science reporting”.
Yes but the definition of “crank viewpoints” is made by who? Yes , quite right, by the AGW Mafia.
As for his being dead, what relevance does that have?

DC says:
September 20, 2012 at 2:40 am
Nice work, slander the dead with a lie for a headline. What a slimeball you are. You have to have a seriously warped world view to think that “don’t promote crank viewpoints” is an “argument against balance in science reporting”.

I’m sure he’s still busy slandering us on the other side… and probably compiling a blacklist of weather-gods who have had the temerity to make the Earth cool over the last seven years even as we exercise our freedom of speech.
No genuinely competent journalist should take a partisan activist’s word on what is or is not journalistically irresponsible. The fact that so many did says a lot more about the partisan stance of the ‘Society of Environmental Journalists’ than it does about the facts of the legitimate scientific debate around global warming.
“To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
…Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest.”

-Stephen Schneider-
This is advocacy and activism, not science.


Going by QE3 in USA and similar everywhere else we will, in due course, have a global Weimar Republic.
Our currencies have already been debauched and the approaching light is an oncoming train rather than the end of the tunnel.
The politicians have effectively given up and are just timeserving in the interval.


WUWT link in the comments:
19 Sept: LiveScience: Natalie Wolchover: Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don’t Disprove Global Warming
In the post, climate change skeptic and blogger Steven Goddard states that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest level ever recorded for the 256th day of the calendar year on Sept. 12. He reasons that the Southern Hemisphere must be balancing the warming of the Northern Hemisphere by becoming colder (and thus, net global warming is zero)…
Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard’s post has garnered attention around the Web. In a column about the record high Antarctic sea ice, skeptic James Taylor writes, “Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.”
***But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year — or the mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really happening.
“Antarctic sea ice hasn’t seen these big reductions we’ve seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us,” said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC…


a taste of Natalie Wolchover’s work, whereby not even dead baby boomers will escape the CAGW-ers:
Dec 2011: MSNBC: Natalie Wolchover: Burning deceased humans will produce electricity
Turbines at crematorium will convert heat into as much as 150 kilowatt-hours per corpse
In Durham, England, corpses will soon be used to generate electricity…
Some might find this concept creepy. Others might be pleased to learn that the process “makes cremation much greener by utilizing its by-products,” in the words of cremation engineer Steve Looker, owner and chief executive officer of the Florida-based company B&L Cremation Systems, which is unaffiliated with the Durham enterprise.
In Europe, tightening regulations on crematorium emissions, coupled with the high price of energy, will lead more and more facilities to go the way of Durham in the future, Looker said…
According to Looker, whose company is currently testing different methods of utilizing cremation waste heat, the expensive turbine systems being installed in Durham are not yet economically viable for crematories here. “In the U.S., most crematories don’t have enough throughput,” he told Life’s Little Mysteries. “Cremation in some parts of Europe is over 90 percent, but it is not over 50 percent yet here.” That is, less than half of Americans opt for cremation…
However, Looker is hopeful that the situation could change in the near future. “Over the next 10 years, with the baby boomers coming through, cremation is going to reach 75 to 80 percent. Then, this might be feasible.” …

Stephen Schneider made a career of alarmism. Here he is through the years going back to the 1970’s:

lurker passing through, laughing

So Schneider, and by implication his pal Ehrlich, were using deception from early on.

lurker passing through, laughing

DC, you are just annoyed because you know it is true, but you are too cowardly to face the truth.