From Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s Twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/375310167916560385
One graph says it all, especially after I annotated it for climate news spike events.
Source of original: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/us/index.html
Note that WUWT was at the source/center of two spikes: Climategate and the IPCC AR5 leak. Always happy to help.
@catcracking: You do know that Al Gore sold his struggling cable network to Al Jazeera, correct?
“Honest to goodness news.” Yeah boy, the old country boy always has a surprise up his sleeve!
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/al-gore-al-jazeera-honest-goodness-news
Michael Barnes says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:45 pm
The tricky part will be inventing a taxable mechanism by which humans may be held responsible for ice ages.
Lance Wallace says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:04 pm
The NYTimes may have deep sixed their environmental reporting but they have given Justin Gillis front page space three times in the last two weeks for his easily rebutted screeds. I think that parts of the MSM will continue to promote CACA until they have either divested their pension funds of investments in green mutual funds or the funds themselves have completely crashed and burned.
@ur momisugly Insufficiently Sensitive
The reason you see the references to green house gasses and emissions reduction, etc is because the money to pay for roads and bridges comes from the govt. All projects have to be reviewed by the city/ county/ state/ federal departments, which ever department is paying for it. Since the greenies have infected the ranks at the EPA and various DOT(S) then to placate them and get approvals, you have to play the game. I have spoken to many colleagues about this topic and while we all agree that we do impact our local micro climates to some extent, very few are true CAGW/ CO2 is evil believers, sadly most of them are in govt.
Matthew R. Epp P.E.
What we have here, is a failure to communicate climate change.
Anyone want to place bets who changes their views on Al Gores Warming first?
WUnderGround, National Geographic, or Weather Channel?
With the odds a gazillion to one against them changes views, I think it will come down to funding.
“The bottom falls out of major US newspaper coverage of climate”.
===================
Not in Chicago:
http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/22048060-474/global-warming-is-real-and-its-our-fault-lets-fix-it.html
—
http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/letters/22073575-474/carbon-tax-is-important-first-step-in-addressing-global-warming.html
—–
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/22211449-452/chicago-should-lead-the-way-in-slowing-global-warming.html
—-
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/splash/21934583-418/todd-ricketts-bikes-can-help-solve-some-of-the-worlds-problems.html
=========================
Sorry mods,
those were all from August 2013 after a quick search of the major newspaper.
There were more, I read it everyday.
They just can’t stop themselves ?
It will be most interesting to watch how long it takes the “professional societies” to realize they got (willingly) snookered too, and start issuing “amended” climate-change position statements.
Their membership may be largely evacuated before they acknowledge how badly they perverted the fundamental principles of science with all this consensus-bandwagoneering.
I look forward to replacement of AGU, GeolSocAmer, AMS, PhysSoc, and fellow-travelers by societies devoted to restoring the rightful place of skepticism in scientific inquiry.
The die-hard alarmists will always have the Union of Concerned Scientists (with Benji as mascot)
CRS,
Yes I knew that Big Al sold his country out for more $$$
It is clear that the propaganda will step up as they pump more and more $$$ to keep the sheeple informed.
Alvin,
When I tell my kids that the government knows the who and when for all of their cell phone calls, they become more receptive to the skeptical agw argument. Most families won’t bother, but there are many of us who aren’t going to lie down and let Jeb’s Common Core mold our children.
There are still groups of people where they believe in CAGW and are unaware of the scientific data that might contradict some of their deeply held beliefs. Living in the US Pacific Northwest where it is obvious to most casual observer that El Nino-La Nina cycles drive our weather, most progressives are unaware of data contrary to their deeply held beliefs.
Indeed post IPCC BS part 5 , will be the time to see how the press reacts . Those ‘journalist’ that are nothing more then green photocopying machines will run as much and as hard as they can . But if their editors think the public is not interested , then this will not last long .
Sadly the BBC ’28’ will pull the stops out , so actual coverage may not reflect public interest so much as personnel obsession from those committed to ‘the cause ‘
How often have with seen a dramatic headline for some worthless ‘research’ only for it die a quite death , well odds on it will be the same this time.
How could a MSM global warming PR campaign succeed if two of its major architects were Mann and Hansen? It couldn’t.
They were inadequate to the task of being competent with the climate science to begin with, the PR was more of the same incompetence extended to the MSM realm.
John
@GeologyJim
It’s Kenji, Jim. That Disney pup isn’t into science…
I suspect AR5 will be the first IPCC production where the sceptic/realist perspective will have a hearing in the MSM. For AR4 there were no “go to” sceptics, now there are. Never under estimate just how lazy journalists actually are.
Plus, even some name brand climate scientists, Judy Curry for one, are not likely to sing from the hymn book.
And, delightfully, as the sensitivity papers, the cosmic cloud connection and such like keep right on coming, the report will be stillborn because its “science” will be outdated.
[All of which explains why the odious Kevin “the heat is in the deep, deep, deep” Trebleth is reported as suggesting that the IPCC’s AR process is probably not worth keeping.
The money is pulling out:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/al-gores-incredible-shrinking-climate-change-footprint
Unfortunately the bureaucratic machinery labors on, and will do so for years. Too many featherbed jobs at stake.
Their only readers are each other. It is a contest of which can produce the most sensational grade school drama. Other issues are actually affecting the sheeple to a higher degree (pun) than climate stories. No big weather drama this summer and winter is coming… 🙂 We watch the super bowl during a blizzard is the big betting.
RHS says: @ur momisugly September 4, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Anyone want to place bets who changes their views on Al Gores Warming first?
WUnderGround, National Geographic, or Weather Channel?
With the odds a gazillion to one against them changes views, I think it will come down to funding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think it will come down to the mile high glacier sitting on their office building and they STILL will insist it is CO2 what done it.
geologyJim says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:13 pm
“It will be most interesting to watch how long it takes the “professional societies” to realize they got (willingly) snookered too,..”
Jim, they didn’t get snookered. The green machine got themselves elected to the levers of these societies and journals. Don’t forget Gleick, the “scientific integrity” officer of AGU got a medal from them after his robbery of Heartland docs and added a phony one of his own. Didn’t Lewandowski get a medal at the Royal Society and a prestigious professorship at a British U for his cooked up survey to show skeptics as sick folks?
It’s not the media coverage of the BS that I fear, though. It’s the crazy politics claiming the BS as ‘justification’. And there’s not much sign yet of a meaningful slowdown there.
Odd I thought it was the other way around.
Perhaps today’s low number is an “anti-spike” due to Syria coverage.
Actually I think we are looking at something quite dangerous based on past experience.
The sheeple were allowed to ‘voice’ their opinions (as long as it agreed with the main goal) and now the USA is moving to the next stage, implementation of the agreed on ‘Consensus’. Once a decision is made in the back rooms of power we get the shaft whether or not we agree, complain or scream bloody murder. The news media was bought up in 1917 link so we never actually know what the real opinions of our fellow sheep are, only what the MSM TELLS us they are.
The real question is if the power-brokers are comfortable enough with their consolidation of power in China, India, Russia, Brazil, and South America (the BRICS countries) to be willing to finish killing off their base of power in the EU, USA, Australia and the rest of the west.
Our real hope was the resentment of the Cyprus Haircut and the response from BRICS.
As usual you need to Follow the Money.
Hey geologyJim:
I almost gave up my GSA membership of 30+years as a result of its position on CAGW. Thankfully, there are at least some sensible research papers creeping back in to the various publications, so I re-upped at least for this year – I will decide again come December.
As an aside, I have been a Subject Matter Expert on the National Association of State Boards of Geology (the uniform national professional testing organization) and I am currently the new appointee to the Executive Committee and upcoming President of the group. IN my 10 years at ASBOG I heard ONE (count them) geologist suggest that the PG examination should include questions about geologic repositories for carbon sequestration because of AGW. The rest of us (and we are all State Geologists, University professors, and/or on our respective states’ licensing boards and practicing professionals) simply joke about AGW. Whenever we are reviewing one of the PG examination questions and we are not certain of the answer, one of us will invariably say…”Oh, it’s global warming” even if the question pertains to something as esoteric as metamorphic petrology.
We are the group, selected by our respective states’ professionals and legislatures to represent each state pertaining to the practice of professional geology, and we make recommendations to the many universities as to curricula to ensure graduates will be prepared to become a licensed professional, and almost to a man (woman) none of us take AGW with even a modicum of seriousness. The one person who made the suggestion regarding sequestration was a one-hit-wonder – he/she was at one meeting representing his/her state, but never made a second appearance.
We conducted our routine five-year Task Analysis Survey of thousands of practicing professionals and university professors three years ago (2010) and NOT ONE respondent suggested that questions on the test should include anything about AGW.
It is apparent that REAL practicing Earth scientists could not give a flying @ur momisugly#*& about AGW nonsense
I have just found out how to delete the Weather Channel app!