Video: Why science reporter Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press is more about 'New Catch Phrases' and less about science

seth_borensteinWorth repeating, in their own words on video, from Pierre Gosselin’s “No tricks Zone”:

Amazing…AP Reporter Seth Borenstein Emphasizing Value Of “New Catch Phrases” To Hype Up Climate Stories!

For the media, at least for the AP’s Seth Borenstein (seen at left in the video), it’s not about presenting the science in a professional and balanced manner, rather it’s all about sensationalizing it and getting the editor to print it. The good stuff starts at about the 7:30 mark.

Seth Borenstein of The Associated Press, Craig Welch of the Seattle Times, and documentary producer Steve Sapienza lead an interactive session that provides insights and tips from accomplished reporters whose reporting on climate change has been lauded for its accuracy, accessibility, and originality at Metcalf Institute’s Climate Change and the News: Impacts in Marine and Coastal Environments seminar for journalists held in Washington, DC April 24-25, 2014 (Video published Online Sept 7th, 2014)

45:38 Craig Welch boasting:

Nobody in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of. And if I find out about it I will go talk to them myself, but I also work in a newsroom where my managing editor used to be an environmental reporter and so there’s never been, I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”

– See more at:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 20, 2014 6:14 pm

These reporters don’t even know how to speak a grammatically correct sentence. (Explain the first sentence in the quotes!)

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
October 20, 2014 6:29 pm

I’m glad I’m not the only one confused by that quotation.

george e. smith
Reply to  PaulH
October 20, 2014 9:35 pm

” (There’s) Nobody in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe (that) climate change is real , that I know of. ”
I know that some folks at WUWT think it is just cool to write words without any punctuation.
Sometimes something as close to the end of civilization as a simple comma (,) can make the incomprehensible seem intelligent.
With suggested parenthicated additions from me of course.

Reply to  PaulH
October 20, 2014 9:43 pm

An armed panda comes into the restaurant then eats shoots and leaves.

Reply to  PaulH
October 21, 2014 12:06 am

He presumably means “There is nobody, that I know of, in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real”
However practically illiterate journalists are quite common these days thanks to the decay of the school system.

Reply to  PaulH
October 21, 2014 3:18 am

Look a head in the river.
Look ahead in the river.

Reply to  PaulH
October 21, 2014 3:20 am

a single comma is very important
I can’t leave her behind alone,
I can’t leave her behind, alone.

Reply to  PaulH
October 24, 2014 3:42 pm

“I don’t know anybody in my newsroom who dares to quote climate deniers”. Is that the line a young US journalist should learn? Those words may end up way up there with “I’ll take the orange jump suit and the black blindfold, please” line being taught to journalists who are headed into northern Syria.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
October 20, 2014 7:07 pm

The first sentence is quite grammatical for anyone who understands basic English, or can diagram sentences.
Let me explain it to you:
Nobody in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of.
Start with people who don’t believe climate change, call them skeptics
Nobody in my newsroom who quotes skeptics is real.
Seth is merely explaining that there are imaginary people in his newsroom.

Reply to  MikeN
October 20, 2014 7:21 pm

He knows that his audience is none-too-bright. He is a pro who well understands that he helps to sell soap and has pitched his appeal accordingly, and he could give a rodent’s rectum about what we on WUWT think.

Reply to  MikeN
October 20, 2014 9:17 pm

Let the diagramming begin.
Disregard. I can’t diagram a sentence that ends in a preposition. They didn’t teach me that in school, and I haven’t learned it since, **so far as I know**.

Reply to  MikeN
October 20, 2014 9:58 pm

Yep, that was my first thought. Thankfully he’s clearly on a path to recovery in denying that the leprechauns from Wattsupwiththat who speak to him in his newsroom are real ones. Of course there is nothing in what he said to intimate what the real ones tell him in his newsroom or in his bedroom for that matter, we simply don’t know.

Frank Kotler
Reply to  MikeN
October 20, 2014 10:14 pm

… and he talks to them.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  MikeN
October 21, 2014 4:53 am

In reply to tteclod, who said, ” I can’t diagram a sentence that ends in a preposition.”
That’s the kind of nonsense I won’t put up with, to paraphrase Winston Churchil.
Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, some notable writers (aka Latin-obsessed 17th century introverts) tried to make English grammar conform to that of Latin – hence the veto on split infinitives and also the ruling against the ending of a sentence with a preposition (also called stranding or deferring a preposition).
In speaking Latin, it’s impossible to split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition. English is not Latin: in English there are no such restrictions.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
October 20, 2014 8:18 pm

Speaking? There is so much more to speaking than being grammatical. sheesh.

NZ Willy
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
October 20, 2014 8:57 pm

[There is] nobody in my newsroom who quotes [people who don’t believe climate change is real] that I know of.
In other words, he reckons nobody in his newsroom will give air to skeptics.

Santa Baby
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
October 21, 2014 12:09 am

Looking for good scientists that also are activists?
Nice to know because you can not be both and still be a scientist.

Santa Baby
Reply to  Santa Baby
October 21, 2014 12:30 am

Also raise the question. Can the 3 be both journalists and activists?

Paul Coppin
Reply to  Santa Baby
October 21, 2014 3:33 am

The answer to that question is no. Good journalism can advocate, but advocacy is not journalism.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
October 21, 2014 10:32 am

If you listen to the video at 45:38, you can hear what he actually says. The problem is that it was transcribed wrong in the quotation above. An extra “who” was added to the sentence that was not there. This is what he actually said:
“Nobody in my newsroom quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real, that I know of.”
In other words, he’s bragging about the one-sided censorship that occurs in his newsroom. Today’s “news” has become propaganda, and today’s “journalists” are actually proud of their roll in betraying and destroying true journalism.

Jay Turberville
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
October 21, 2014 6:41 pm

Frankly, I give a lot of leeway to people speaking extemporaneously in question and answer sessions. Some people are quite good at it and some aren’t. I wouldn’t necessarily expect a reporter to do this well.

October 20, 2014 6:35 pm

What is wrong with just telling the truth.
The truth that the global warming forecasts are way off so far. Is the real Earth just trying to confuse us or is the simple fact a simple fact.
Journalism used to be about the simple fact. When did it change? What is wrong with the truth?
Why the need to spin beyond the truth? When does Seth’s editors fix the obvious problem here.

Follow the Money
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 20, 2014 6:46 pm

What is wrong with just telling the truth.
It does not pay as well.

Reply to  Follow the Money
October 20, 2014 7:04 pm

Bu the time you get your boots on the enemy is already halfway around the world.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 20, 2014 9:56 pm

It’s a version of what Goebbels coined in the final months of the war as “poetic truth” which he described to an assistant as events of the imagination that “should have taken place”.
These ‘journalists’ invent stories of what they imagine ought to be happening as per the IPCC’s most alarmist predictions.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 21, 2014 10:29 am

Back issues of Pravda may help you see when journalism changed and what is wrong with the truth (Pravda in Russian)

Jay Turberville
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 21, 2014 6:47 pm

I don’t think real journalism was ever about the simple fact. Just look up the term “yellow journalism.” It might be comforting to think that there was a time when you could trust journalism. But I think that is probably naive. That said, I’d guess that the quality of journalism probably goes through cycles as people either get fed up with the lies or get bored by the mundane truth.

October 20, 2014 6:39 pm

This isn’t journalism it’s pure advocacy by the church of CAGW

Reply to  latecommer2014
October 21, 2014 1:16 am

I went out a few weeks ago and we had the second earliest snow ever (that is in over 100 years of records). It is warming wut done it. Because when ever it warms we get snow. Innit? Now that we have all these fantastic models (which is the correct one?) we will never need a weatherman again. Good thing too as they are so often wrong.

Reply to  latecommer2014
October 21, 2014 1:26 am

What are you talking about? Seth Borenstein is a laughing stock, nobody (even his pals from Associated Press) take this clown seriously.
Prof. Singer is a scientist. One of the few with integrity and knowledge. You are not worthy of pronouncing his name.
And yes, cancer frequently attacks people who don’t smoke, and many people who smoke like locomotives don’t have cancer and live to their 90s. Such are the facts. Being predisposed for cancer and smoking is a very bad combination, indeed. But persecution of smokers has become a favorite preoccupation of blighters incapable to find any other way to feel superior to others. (Disclaimer: I quit smoking more than a year ago, after 40 years of puffing, and didn’t even brag about it until now.)

Harry Passfield
Reply to  latecommer2014
October 21, 2014 3:59 am

You need to work on your arguments – and your insults – more, Peter. The fact that you say smoking causes cancer is a syllogism: You know that some smokers contract cancer of the lung; yet you know that some never do. But you’d rather splash the headline that smoking causes cancer, without qualification. That’s why I tend not to bother with you. I’ve made an exception because you want to denigrate someone for no good reason other than it allows you to believe that person is worthless, and therefore, so are his arguments. In your case, it is your arguments that are worthless.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  latecommer2014
October 21, 2014 4:00 am

Still hitting the laughing gas, I see.

Reply to  latecommer2014
October 21, 2014 4:26 am

What’s an Ozone Shield?

Reply to  latecommer2014
October 21, 2014 4:30 am

While I’m here Peter, my brother died of a brain tumour (cancer) in March of this year aged 59.
He had never smoked a cigarette in his life.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  latecommer2014
October 21, 2014 10:32 am

Your education was complete.

Reply to  latecommer2014
October 21, 2014 9:04 pm

News flash for ‘ya, your so called science is corrupt. The IPCC is mandated to scientifically justify global warming. NO evidence to the contrary will be permitted. These reporters’claim that a small group of scientists in the employ of the UN have settled the “science” is laughable. They all peer review themselves and condemn sceptics as science deniers. It is now those claiming human CO2 emissions are causing global warming that are the real deniers; no warming for 17 years. Another 20 years of no warming and all the climate alarmists will have died off and we will have two generations that have never witnessed any warming. The world will then be done with this nonsense.

Dave VanArsdale
October 20, 2014 6:41 pm

“…I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”
Indeed, Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press, many know what you’re doing, so…shame on you for doing it.

October 20, 2014 6:43 pm

Amazing, they admit they quote scientists then extrapolate whatever they feel like from the quote. Another startling admission is that they refuse to quote sceptics.
So climate alarmism is all media hype.

October 20, 2014 6:44 pm

Is that sign in the background for the “Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholarship” ? There’s an oxymoron right there. Woodrow was (to put it kindly) “Never mistaken, but very often wrong”. To name a “Scholarship Center” after him makes “sense”.
Enough said right there. These folks want everybody in a constant panic; “Never let a good crisis go to waste, you can get away with things you otherwise couldn’t” (paraphrased somewhat).
Management by “Catch Phrase”, what could possibly go wrong ?
Cheers, Kevin.

October 20, 2014 6:50 pm

Same basic problem, different decade (or two). Quoting from the pg 3 14th paragraph at this 1994 LA Times article ( ): “Dumanoski of the Boston Globe recalls “a big argument with a top editor at the Globe, on deadline” about a story in which a Harvard University scientist said there was ‘a very high probability’ of a large hole in the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere before the end of the century. Dumanoski says her editor told her the story would be worthy of Page 1 only if the scientist said there definitely would be a large hole; ‘high probability’ wasn’t good enough to warrant Page 1.”
And a quote from the same Boston Globe’s Dianne Dumanoski circa 1990(3rd-to-last paragraph here ): “There is no such thing as objective reporting…I’ve become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That’s my subversive mission.”

October 20, 2014 6:59 pm

I wonder what “climate change is real” means to people who use such a phrase. I know it doesn’t mean anything. Just wondering what is actually going on inside their heads.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  willnitschke
October 21, 2014 5:30 am

Get with the program, silly. “Climate change” means imminently catastrophic climate change caused by human activity. Even though the phrase contains none of those words.
Changing the meaning of words through repetition and information control. Basic propaganda technique.

Just Steve
Reply to  willnitschke
October 21, 2014 6:05 am

It means hand over your wallet

October 20, 2014 7:01 pm

Climate journalists don’t the most basic of research on their topics. A simple search for polar vortex shows the term used at least as early as the 1880s. Parrots.

Reply to  steven
October 20, 2014 10:02 pm

Egocentrically giddy parrots.

October 20, 2014 7:07 pm

I wonder if they can come up with a catch phrase about the 3rd largest recorded increase in arctic ice extent, which happened today: NSIDC reports a triple century today: +326k.
My suggestion is ‘Holy Crap! Don’t we look like idiots.’

October 20, 2014 7:08 pm

the reason the grammar skips a beat is because he had to change his lies halfway through. One of two things and he was unable to say either one concisely: under his editor there has either never been a reporter who would have included fact or, the editor would never have allowed a quote.
Fishing for new catch phases and bumper sticker slogans is required to keep the lofo voter and supporter.
Make sure the peeps don’t get the real stuff because…{they wouldn’t read AP anymore}

October 20, 2014 7:19 pm

So they are no longer reporting news. They are suppressing and censoring a discussion. In other words, they are mere bigots. The chronic obsession with “marketing” and “communicating” so-called climate change is a huge tell about the lack of reality in what these faux journalists and their cohorts are pushing.

October 20, 2014 7:23 pm

It’s all about the narrative, but Nature is Nemesis.

October 20, 2014 7:23 pm

They are churnalists, not journalists. Once you accept that, everything makes sense.
There is even an freely available search tool that allows you to tell the difference …

Reply to  Truthseeker
October 20, 2014 10:20 pm

I wish someone would design a similar detector –

October 20, 2014 7:27 pm

Craig Welch is the reporter who did The Seattle Times ocean acidification series in 2013. Recent reporting on Puget Sound shellfish has created somewhat a kerfuffle since the US EPA,Washington State and UW prof. Cliff Mass disagree with The Seattle Times articles. Dr. Mass now finds himself persona non grata with the Times. (Specifically Mr. Welch, I would guess.) Dr. Mass discusses it on his blog Sept. 7, 2014.

Larry Hamlin
October 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Borenstein and the AP have been dealing in climate alarmist propaganda for years. They are engaged in a campaign of political ideology that has nothing to do with science.

October 20, 2014 7:48 pm

45:38 Craig Welch boasting:
“Nobody in my newsroom who quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of. And if I find out about it I will go talk to them myself, but I also work in a newsroom where my managing editor used to be an environmental reporter and so there’s never been, I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”
As a regular reader and follower of WUWT, I can easily tell how the statement above completely misrepresents the issues of CAGW and climate change–and I am not even a scientist. This is an issue of how much the Earth’s climatic system is sensitive to the GH effect of CO2 and how much climate change can be attributed to humankind’s contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere–if any of it can be. And the sensitivity issue is one that is far from being understood and settled.
It boils my blood to see MSM buffoons like these guys misrepresenting the issue and misleading the American people. The only consolation is knowing that climate change/CAGW is so low on the American public’s list of the issues that matter to them today. So why don’t these dim MSM light bulbs just drop the subject?
It is somewhat amusing to think that these guys actually believe they are going to “save the planet” this way. Give me a break.

Reply to  CD (@CD153)
October 20, 2014 8:04 pm

…..and no, Welch’s statement makes no sense to me either. And I read it multiple times.

October 20, 2014 7:49 pm

It’s not about temperature. The Liberals/Progressives/Greenies control most of the media and their agenda has nothing to do with temperature.

Reply to  markl
October 20, 2014 10:39 pm

Well, temperature really was never anyone’s concern by itself, the mother of the issue requires that “it” is “bad”. No boogeyman = no news. Journalism has become less about reporting the news and more about manipulating people’s perception of it for political expediency.

Reply to  markl
October 21, 2014 3:08 am

By US standards, I’d probably be considered a Liberal, Progressive and possibly a ‘Greenie’ too, yet after seeing the Lysenkoist stifling of debate, systemic cherry picking, confirmation bias, misrepeseantation of data, blurring of the lines between science and activism and screeching propagandising that becomes more intense the more vulnerable to sceptical inquiry its tenants become, I also consider the CAGW scare a crock of s***t on a magnitude unparalleled in human history. A popular delusion and a madness not necessarily of crowds, but of a group of (mostly left leaning) self aggrandising Cassandras living under the illusion of a hallowed system of hermetic knowledge with just enough sheen of credibility to appear scientific (so long as you don’t look too closely at the data and are willing to stretch the definitions of ‘science’) but not so demanding on the level presented by its high priests as to really require a close look. Self sustaining in terms of the rewards available to its most vehement followers – acceptance, fashionability, money, moral superiority and righteousness, and maybe more forgivably, a kind of talisman against the fear of both nature and the modern world with its terrifying uncertainties: if you believe scary events that are far bigger than you are can be caused by humans, it’s easier to believe they can be brought under control by humans.
Though the CAGW scare shares these qualities with many political movements, it is motivated by both more and less than politics (depending on how you look at it). It is a mistake for sceptics to be drawn into the idea of this being a war between left and right – it too easily allows adherents of this nonsense to dismiss critics as being motivated by wealth and idealism rather than (as is my case) an allergy to dishonesty, no matter how noble the cause, and to blinker themselves to any reasonable criticism or questioning. CAGW alarmism is at its roots driven by personal and group psychology, which might embody political views, but does not necessarily stem from them or motivate them. CAGW propagandists like Borenstien and Klien are driven by hubris over anything else.

Reply to  JJB MKI
October 21, 2014 8:35 am

Good reply. The old definition of “democrat/liberal” has been subverted & transformed into something mostly unrecognizable from 50 or so yrs ago. I’d be called a “conservative”, but generally find all politicians and politics reprehensible nowadays. From a book I read many years ago — Politics are the antithesis to science much more than religion.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  JJB MKI
October 21, 2014 10:18 am

JJB MKI, you are correct in your thinking vis a vis left and right IN THEORY. However, in real life, the left does have a leg up on this kind of fraud simply because of it’s collectivist nature and the ‘preparation’ that a largely sosh@list education provides. There is a lot wrong with the ‘Right’ and free enterprise, but one can neutralize a good part of it with regulation (unfair trade practices, etc. etc.). There is certainly no argument that the right is an engine of wealth creation, whereas the left is a redistributor of wealth, ultimately to the point of killing the goose with its golden eggs by trying to support a huge civil service that makes people dependent on them with lavish programs.
Yeah, yeah, I get it that there is a sizable antediluvian part of the right with crimson necks and a resistance to change, but at the same time, it is also natural that individualist thinkers and sceptics are more likely to come from the right than the left. Leftist intellectuals are preoccupied with the ideology, beating down the right, and don’t pay much heed to whether science is right or wrong. Final defeat of the right and the leftist intellectuals essentially disappear. Naturally, honest, thinking sceptics are clubbed over the head with the handy antediluvian part by their antagonists, so their distinction is largely buried without having to think about what they have to say.
I have an extended family member who is a Trotskyite that I love to argue with (and he with me- he is a very bright fellow). When I argue that the failed systems, like former Soviet Union and China (which has chosen revision toward free enterprise rather than a dropping out of communism) are falsifications of the system, he disowns them as a hijacking of the pure system by ham-handed, power hungry opportunists. Naturally, my argument is that the hijacking is made inevitable by collectivism. Also, there is no regulatory avenue to restrict the corruption of the system – regulations are made in camera by those who would corrupt it.
Once you have everyone collected, it’s ripe for a hijacking, just like once you get enough radioactive material gathered together there is an unequivocal result. Such dissidents as Soltzhenitsyn and the other few brave souls that somehow in that barren medium preserved a desire for individualism and freedom of thought is almost miraculous. However, viewed from the mass of the collected, such individuals are merely mentally ill, ineducable, schizoid, dangerous to themselves and others.

October 20, 2014 7:58 pm

The vid lasts for a painful hour but is quite revealing. Much of the grammar is disjointed. This, far from costing the speaker credibility within his clique, adds to it because their whole position is based on emotion. To us rational folk this is repugnant, or at least offputting; to ‘believers’, such incoherent gushing is a mark of sincerity, of authentic passion. I see no sign that these wicked subversives are aware that the AGW hoax is factually wrong. To them, facts schmacts. The mentality is utterly alien to yer average WUWT reader with his rational mindset but, as they say, know thine enemy. These skilled and sincere propagandists, like Mann and Hanson, have the ear of government. Regardless of the Pause, these gits are still winning.

Bill parsons
October 20, 2014 7:58 pm

Borenstein bores.

Reply to  Bill parsons
October 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Borenstein bears his ignorance.

stan stendera
Reply to  Bill parsons
October 21, 2014 4:43 am

His real name is Seth Boringstern.

October 20, 2014 8:14 pm

The wonder is that these people seem to actually believe that climate change is actually occurring.

Reply to  Col Klink
October 20, 2014 8:20 pm

Yeah. Amazing

Reply to  trafamadore
October 21, 2014 3:22 am

Haha, see my point above 🙂

Stevan Makarevich
Reply to  Col Klink
October 20, 2014 9:27 pm

According to an article today in ABC News, “Some people, mostly non-scientists, have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but “no one’s told the globe that,” Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming”. (Jessica Blunden is a NOAA climate scientist).
And all along I thought those posting in WUWT were mostly scientists – I guess I was wrong (sarc).
The ABC news link is
(sorry – I do not know how to format links in this web site).

Reply to  Stevan Makarevich
October 21, 2014 1:27 am

From the article:
“It’s pretty likely” that 2014 will break the record for hottest year, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden.
The reason involves El Nino, a warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide. In 1998, the year started off super-hot because of an El Nino. But then that El Nino disappeared and temperatures moderated slightly toward the end of the year.
This year has no El Nino yet, but forecasts for the rest of the year show a strong chance that one will show up, and that weather will be warmer than normal, Blunden said.
So – no warming yet – but it is sure to come. Real soon now.

Reply to  Col Klink
October 21, 2014 2:22 am

Not amazing at all. It’s what they’re being told. Over, and over, and over, and over.
Couple that with human nature and wanting to “feel good” about something…and there you have the basis for the magical recipe that keeps this going.

October 20, 2014 8:27 pm

Post-reporter journalism. They are all editors now and all they write are editorials. “Reporter” is so last century.

Cold in Wisconsin
October 20, 2014 9:02 pm

Of course! With editorials you don’t even have to maintain an aura of objectivity–you can opine to your hearts content!

Rud Istvan
October 20, 2014 9:17 pm

Craig Welch of Seattle Times wrote the Sea Change series on ‘ocean acidification’. It is fatally flawed bad science reporting. I wrote him and his newspaper presenting one of two proofs (guest posted at Climate Etc.) Never got even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Cliff Mass of U. Wash also tried via his excellent blog, and was also declared Seattle Times persona non grata.
So, the larger essay with two examples debunking Sea Change (corals in addition to oysters) titled Shell Games appeared in my new ebook Blowing Smoke yesterday. Foreward from Judith Curry. Maybe now you all can use it to get Seth’s, Craig’s, and the Seattle Times attention. At least, theynwill have a VERY hard time responding to Blowing Smoke. Since that’s what they do, and the book presents verifiable, documented counterfacts.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 21, 2014 2:26 am

This is marketing, pure and simple. They have a “product”, they have a distribution mechanism, and they are very good at marketing that product. They’ve identified a demographic of likely “consumers” who will pay for their product, and they’re not going to deviate from that plan. Their consumers are hooked on it…and continue to pay for it, thereby supporting their industry.
If they were to deviate from it, sales/support goes down, and they’d all find themselves with no profession and no means of support.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
October 20, 2014 9:23 pm

Looks like plagiarism of the 1967 film ‘In Like Flint.’

This bit on YouTube does not do it justice.
You will have to get and watch the entire movie to see the sean of the three scientists explaining their eco-terrorism to control Weather.
Jolly Good,

r murphy
October 20, 2014 9:24 pm

Bit off thread but is not the field of climate science much like professional cycling? The leaders are all cheats but are successful so everyone just shuts up and pretends nothing is going on, but, as in cycling the truth comes out. Lets hope the ringleaders can be prosecuted and ruined, we owe it to those that were persecuted by them.

David Ball
Reply to  r murphy
October 21, 2014 8:07 am

Thank you Mr. Murphy. Always glad to see your posts.

Joel O'Bryan
October 20, 2014 10:04 pm

We know the routine.
– Climate Alarmism sells journalism and keeps naive people awake at night.
– Accepting “Natural climate variability” puts people to sleep.

Joel O'Bryan
October 20, 2014 10:09 pm

The evolution of climate science:
natural variability –> global cooling –> global cooling –> climate change –> climate disruption –>{do loop}-|

Gary Hladik
October 20, 2014 10:17 pm

If the science actually supported their alarmist views, they wouldn’t need fancy catchphrases.

Paul westhaver
October 20, 2014 10:31 pm

What a weird mutual masturbatory hen session.
1) Seth Borenstein’s effeminate gesticulations.
My creep-out radar when tilt when I started listening to Borenstein. He is one of those “guys” whose voice is all in his mouth. No base tones or lung reverberations like you might hear from James Earl Jones. Also he has that insecure head nutation. You know the one where he thinks he’s said something important and needs recognition so his statements are followed by that self affirming micro gesture… a nod or nutation. … like he;s thinking.. see me? see.. me being ar-tic-u-late?
And his self aggrandizement. I lost count how many times he referred to himself do something great and clever.
Wow. I’m no psyche expert, but he needs to see a shrink.
2) I am put off by pathetic whiners fawning over each other and exciting each other in obvious submissive impotence. Weird.
The video made me crawl.

Reply to  Paul westhaver
October 21, 2014 1:44 am

But, but… Martinets here will tell you can’t judge by their appearance, you must argue with their “message”…
Agree 100%. Borenstein is a masochistic overfed clown for sale, and proud of it.

October 20, 2014 10:55 pm

11:35 Seth Borenstein: [On female scientists and diversity in reporting] Katherine Heyhoe: Texas Tech Univ. She’s very media friendly, she’s smart, she speaks in sound bites, she’s an evangelical Christian and a climate scientist – what a wonderful combination. [Hey, you might give Roy Spencer a call some day after you run out of women to interview.
12:45 Craig Welch: On ocean acidification … Sarah Cooley who you guys met yesterday, and she’s a great speaker, she spent years as an oceanographer at Woods Hole, she’s not just an activist, she’s a scientist ….

October 20, 2014 11:20 pm

To be fair snake oil salesman who cannot sell a good pitch is very hunger snake oil salesman, so you can see where he is coming from.

October 21, 2014 12:17 am

It’s been at least a year or two that they chose to blame the skeptical gains as “bad communication” or “failure to communicate well enough” by themselves as the sole reason. Either their public stance is intentionally mendacious or they are plain stupid, because they actually believe that FACTS are not part of “the problem”.
They literally seem to believe that there really are only two sides to this – them and the vast blank page of the public’s minds. They genuinely seem to think that nothing done by the skeptics is really part of the equation. They believe that nothing they have to say can possibly be incorrect, and that if the public doesn’t underSTAND the correctness that their group perceives, it can’t be anything except that their message is somehow not being SENT correctly. They LITERALLY cannot understand that the message itself is wrong, that the marshaling of facts contrary to their meme is even possible – that ANYTHING contrary is SO factually incorrect as to be worthless – in spite of the gains by the skeptical side.
In fact, it was CLIMATEGATE that swept their entire bullsh**t under the carpet – pushed the global warming concept under the bus.
The very tone of this video is patently disgusting – that they can openly and glibly talk about how they scam their audience INTENTIONALLY, and their total acceptance that such manipulation is acceptable and even to be LAUDED, encouraged, and expanded.

October 21, 2014 12:38 am

so they indoctrinate young journos! great.
i’m trying to imagine being a student of history in a Hochstadt class:
21 Oct: MyJournalCourier: Steve Hochstadt: The global warming hoax
(Steve Hochstadt is a writer, a gardener and a professor of history at Illinois College. His column appears Tuesdays in the Journal-Courier and is available at
The history of scientific hoaxes is often amusing.
In 1813, Charles Redhoffer created a “perpetual motion machine…BLAH BLAH…
Hoaxers thrive when political ideology influences science. Joseph Stalin hated the Western science of genetics. When the biologist Trofim Lysenko …BLAH BLAH…
So we come to the big scientific hoax of our time, the “global warming hoax.” …
The politically correct view for any Republican running for national office is to agree with Inhofe.
It is a fact that every national science academy across the globe has endorsed the idea of global warming. Studies of thousands of scientific papers have shown that over 95 percent argue in favor of global warming.
So if there is a global warming hoax, it is being perpetrated by virtually all the world’s scientists and governments. The following organizations must also be in on the hoax…BLAH BLAH…
This would be the greatest hoax ever, because unlike every other hoax, it is being committed by all the world’s experts, which is precisely what the global warming deniers are claiming. It is hardly coincidence that those who claim that global warming is a hoax, all have a significant financial or political stake in preventing any action against global warming. Behind the newspaper articles, the radio broadcasts, the tiny number of paid-off scientists, and the politicians are the major oil companies like ExxonMobil, the coal industry, Koch Industries, but also a much larger sector of “dark money” funneled through untraceable pass-through organizations….
Who believes politicians paid by ExxonMobil instead of scientists, doctors and conservationists? Gullible people who want to believe. That’s what makes hoaxes work.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  pat
October 21, 2014 9:05 am

pat, clearly you are a product of the education that has been designed to make you an unquestioning “participant”. I believe this ‘directed’ education got a real foothold about 40 years ago and was perfected over the last 25 years, about the age of the tell-tale term “political correctness”. When I came to the realization of what had happened to education, I advised my own children to think for themselves but give the teacher the “right” answer so they were not penalized.

October 21, 2014 1:19 am

Whenever I see the likes of Seth Borenstein or AP pushing hard in one direction, no matter 18 years of no global warming, I wonder whether there are climate investments involved. The BBC pension scheme is invested in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. I have no investments, interests or employment in any fossil fuel company. I use fossil fuels and appreciate the benefits, that’s it.

[BBC Pension Scheme]
“The Scheme is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and has signed up to their investor statement.”
“The statement is supported by 259 investors – both asset owners and asset managers – that collectively
represent assets of over US$15 trillion.”
IIGCC – November 2010

Hamish McCallum
October 21, 2014 1:45 am

Sorry to be flippant: but when the thumbnail of the photo at the top caught my eye, what I saw was two men in straitjackets with a psychiatric nurse looking on. Then I read the piece…

October 21, 2014 1:50 am

About the BBC pension fund, they have major investments in arms, tobacco, oil and mining stocks….
Top shares: (milllions)
GlaxoSmithKline – 50.7
Rolls Royce – 48.2
BP – 46.7
Amazon.Com – 46.4
AstraZeneca – 46.3
Royal Dutch Shell – 43.0
British American Tobacco – 37.8
Roche Holding – 36.3
Rio Tinto – 34.2
BT Group – 34.1
Imperial Tobacco Group – 30.9
much more fun, to try and persuade activists to get the BBC to ‘divest’ first. As surely going after the low hanging fruit, would be the way to go for the divestment activists.

October 21, 2014 3:36 am

Great point. It was very easy for the UK press to join with and inflame the public mood regarding ‘big pharma’ as regards the MMR jab. Their slow and painful backsliding after the damage they caused (mostly ludicrously pretending – even in the left wing press that they were always sceptical of MMR / autism links), while slightly entertaining to watch, is also creepy and disgusting.

October 21, 2014 5:37 am

If you think the purpose of the media is anything other than to sell product, you are misinformed. They can dress it up with “awards” and “fact-checking” but in the end it all depends on what the public will buy — either confirmation of their prejudices or sensationalism.

Mike in Chile
October 21, 2014 7:24 am

I just looked at the comments on a Huffington Post piece about ‘Another Heat Record Set for the Month’ and I can tell you these guys are right. If they can come up with a new catchphrase, the useful idiots grab on and will not let go. Terms abound like ’97 percent’, ‘Heat in the Oceans’. My favorite was ‘If you don’t believe me here’s a graph:’. So, don’t waste your time with these idiots. But don’t buy land in Florida, because ‘There’s a road near Miami that floods everyday when the tide comes in and it never used to when I was a kid’.

Louis Hooffstetter
October 21, 2014 7:24 am

What a hoot! Did anyone else notice Seth the Science clown was wearing his Halloween Costume?
Does he really think the lab coat lends him credibility?
He doesn’t need a foam rubber nose, a goofy wig, or makeup to make me laugh.
HA! HA! HA! – No treat for you Seth!
Happy Halloween.

Bruce Cobb
October 21, 2014 8:00 am

Borenstein is nothing but a climate hack doing what he’s being paid to do; push the CAGW propaganda. He merely pretends to care about science. Catch phrases, mascots, slogans, and emotionalism are their stock in trade. Trouble is, other than with the tried-and-true Believers, they are losing their desired effect.

Louis Hooffstetter
October 21, 2014 8:15 am

Correction: Seth is not wearing lab coat as I first believed. (I just watched the video again full screen.)
But he did give me a great idea for a Halloween costume.
If a Climate Clown comes Trick or Treating, give him lots of treats.

Gary Pearse
October 21, 2014 8:46 am

About the quote: the rambling, searching, almost unintelligible information in this quote by a person who must know the English language is a measure of the shock they’ve endured by the crumbling of the once exciting, fun-filled topic of global warming. It is a symptom of realization and denial meeting in the middle. Even the meeting itself is a workshop of desperate hope that their equally flummoxed colleagues can come up with something to save them.
These guys have brazenly and confidently staked out their reputations on the looming warming catastrophe. Now they are looking without success for meaningful one-liners or anything to ease the gloom and pain of what has happened to their careers. We have been introduced to a new psychological syndrome with climate scientists in Australia having deep depressions and uncontrolled crying jags. I guess McKibben of was the first to show the weepy symptoms.
Make no mistake. The ones who hang on, when all is lost, are not normal people who have suffered stress. They already had a problem to start with. The anger and ugliness will build up to a crescendo and then descend into depression. The comparative quiet – who hears much of anything from the once swashbuckling warmness climate scientists these days? – is a period of reflection by some considering their options for getting out of the jam and others headed for depression.

October 21, 2014 8:54 am

The question at 7:30 is such a leading idiocy… she does not know anything but goes on and on…

Reply to  TomRude
October 21, 2014 2:27 pm

There were several questions that went on and on and on. Note that Seth holds his head during some of those questions. His eyes glazed over trying to interpret what point the speaker was trying to make. Painful as it was, I watched the entire video.

Bill Parsons
October 21, 2014 11:39 am

I can’t help but think of the Wegman “social networks” diagram showing the pals at work on pseudoscience. This is just a glimpse of the “corresponding” media network pals who are their shadows.
In a Venn diagram, the area of overlap of two circles shows the intersect of belief systems or ideas that both groups hold. There is no intersection of the CAGW-ers and the reporters who love them. The two groups simply are identical.
Wegman was maligned, and his “social networks” graph is now difficult to find on the internet. It was a clear view of what AGW is: a bunch of like-minded men and women who wanted to game the system of government grants and public fears of catastrophe, and who succeeded (probably beyond their own expectations). It really needs to be revivied.

John in Oz
October 21, 2014 2:55 pm

Like, you know, I started listening at the 7:30 mark, like as suggested, you know, and like almost turned it off, you know, before the questioner completed her, like, question. Likey, like, like, you know?
For those concerned with the world we are leaving to future generations, perhaps they should worry more about their language skills.
As for punctuation, try:
“Are you in love?” vs
“Are you in, love?”
Commas can make a lot of difference.

%d bloggers like this: