We're winning – National Public Radio guts its climate reporting team

NPR_officesFrom InsideClimate News: (hat tip to Michael E. Mann)

NPR has cut back on the number of staffers focused solely on the environment and climate change.

Earlier this year, the news outlet had three full-time reporters and one editor dedicated to covering the issue within NPR’s science desk. One remains—and he is covering it only part-time. A few reporters on other desks occasionally cover the topic as well.

The move to shift reporters off the environment beat was driven by an interest to cover other fields more in depth, said Anne Gudenkauf, senior supervising editor of NPR’s science desk.

“We’ll think of a project we want to do and the kind of staff that we need to do it, and then organize ourselves that way,” she said. “One of the things we always do is change in response to the changing world.”

Gudenkauf also said she doesn’t “feel like [the environment] necessarily requires dedicated reporters” because so many other staffers cover the subject, along with their other beats.

Richard Harris, widely known as NPR’s climate science guru (he has reported on international treaty talks since 1992), started covering biomedicine in March. Elizabeth Shogren, who largely focused on the Environmental Protection Agency, is no longer at NPR. Vikki Valentine, the team’s editor, is now lead editor for the outlet’s global health and development coverage, which includes a new project launched this summer using a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Reporter Chris Joyce, a 21-year veteran of NPR, remains.

More: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20141024/npr-reduces-its-environment-team-one-reporter

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Leo Smith
October 25, 2014 5:07 am

Subtext: people are getting bored with a climate that isn’t changing.

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 25, 2014 6:57 am

I think people are getting bored with being told that climate is changing. It’s like having special investigative team constantly breaking news on the earth revolving around the sun.

Steve Allen
Reply to  Alx
October 25, 2014 7:12 am

Another gaggle of Rivera-like tabloid reporters stumbling through Chicago sewers in search of Capone’s mythic treasure, comes to mind.

Reply to  Alx
October 25, 2014 9:38 am

Not heard the news? Human emissions is causing a slowdown of the revolving movement, in 2067 the world will stop turning altogether, and the models predict we will be on the shady side. Forever.

Reply to  Alx
October 26, 2014 11:55 am

That was good! May I use the line please?

Evan Jones
Reply to  Alx
October 26, 2014 12:25 pm

Awful quiet out there.
Too quiet . . .

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 25, 2014 7:21 am

It would not surprise me if NPR realised people switched stations whenever a ‘global warming’ story was aired.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 25, 2014 1:43 pm

They cover what their private foundation funders want covered, and what helps Democrat politicians win. So in those senses it is a partial win for rationality.
But I am sure their motivations to push CAGW are as strong as ever.

David L.
Reply to  Jimbo
October 25, 2014 3:26 pm

That’s exactly what I do!

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 25, 2014 7:53 am

On the boredom factor here are some examples.

Huffington Post – 21 May, 2014
CNN’s Jeff Zucker: Climate Change Coverage Bores Our Audience
CNN chief Jeff Zucker has an explanation for why his network doesn’t cover climate change that much: the audience isn’t interested……
Zucker candidly said that climate change “deserves more attention,” but that he was merely following the ratings……
WUWT – 13 September, 2014
The Weather Channel is losing viewers to global warming and other pointless programming

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jimbo
October 27, 2014 1:02 pm

I honestly worry more when the story is NOT front page – it makes it easier to slip damaging legislation through quietly. A lot of ‘environmentally-friendly’ regulation/activism agenda-items move forward without resistance from your arm-chair ‘common folks’ who vote but don’t pay close attention – under the auspice of ‘it’s for the environment so it must be good’ – or ‘what harm can it do?’
REAL bad boys move in silence.

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 25, 2014 11:40 pm

you are correct the ABC in Australia also needs the same action

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 27, 2014 8:52 am

And the other subtext: Millenials are not big donors when it comes to climate change. Radio itself and TV are in decline like newspapers.

Mike Fayette
October 25, 2014 5:15 am

So I guess it will be reported that Climate Change Deniers are increasing unemployment rates…….

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Mike Fayette
October 25, 2014 6:29 am

It sounds like a move from the environment to real science. So clearly the future is science.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 26, 2014 3:32 pm

“real science”? The medical industry? And even the cosmos gurus theory is being blown away (but, they, as the alarmists, are still in denial).

Reply to  Mike Fayette
October 25, 2014 1:05 pm

Either that or reported that CO2 is increasing unemployment rates…

Bloke down the pub
October 25, 2014 5:18 am

From InsideClimate News: (hat tip to Michael E. Mann)
That was below the belt.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 25, 2014 7:10 am

Is the climate hysteria money drying up? God, I hope the money grabbing opportunities is drying up.

Reply to  spew.normal
October 25, 2014 7:12 am

sorry bloke, didn’t mean to reply, that wouldn’t make any sense 🙂

Jim Hodgen
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 25, 2014 7:10 am

It’s always important to give credit where credit’s due… and if that doesn’t make the recipient happy then it’s a great opportunity for them to contemplate their relationship with the outside world.
Who knows, maybe the Mann will come clean and disclose all using the suit against Steyn as a bully pulpit to expose the charade. Wouldn’t that be a welcome breath of fresh, moderate temperature

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 25, 2014 8:10 am

No wonder Michael Mann is bitter and twisted. NPR were not impressed.

Michael Mann – Penn State University
Climate Change Here and Now (March 28, 2014)
Dr. Michael Mann shares some insight about a new report focused on rising sea levels and other impacts of climate change with Living On Earth (NPR).
Read more and watch > >

October 25, 2014 5:20 am

I guess enviro-journalists really know what being an endangered species feels like …

October 25, 2014 5:22 am

I wish the BBC would take note!
Leo,Sub-subtext: People are getting bored being told that climate is changing, when clearly it isn’t!

Reply to  andrewmharding
October 25, 2014 7:23 am

andrewmharding, I agree with your sentiments but please note: the climate is always changing. It has been doing that for billions of years.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Jimbo
October 25, 2014 8:06 am

This is a thing that mystifies me: Climate Change. It is like saying that the sun comes up every morning in the East. What the Warmistas want to say is the old meme: CAGW. I no longer try to reply to the real deniers, but for those of you who make the effort, please remind them that ‘climate change’ is a given.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 25, 2014 5:21 pm

The term ‘climate change’ is over 100 years old. Some smart Alec on the Warmists’ PR side decided that this will be their new alarm call – considering that global warming came to a standstill – known at least 4 years previously. You must keep your eyes on the pea under the thimble. It’s a funny old game, like the 3 card trick. 😉

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Jimbo
October 26, 2014 3:12 am

Obummer’s “science” czar John Holdren tried to change the global warming name to something more urgent and catastrophic, such as “Global Climate Disruption”. The name itself didn’t gather much traction, but “Climate Change ©®™” and its associated “Every bad weather phenomenon is man made – including nice weather”, seems to have stuck.
Even to them, it’s obvious they’re desperate since their famed Gaia isn’t cooperating.

Bjorn Ramstad
October 25, 2014 5:25 am

Why is this a victory?

Chip Javert
Reply to  Bjorn Ramstad
October 25, 2014 1:07 pm

You get 1.0 Mulligan for asking this question before having your morning coffee.

October 25, 2014 5:26 am

Nobody wants to listen to a climate that is improving with fewer hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, fewer heat waves, and a better ecology thanks to increased CO2 levels.
The real danger is a new little ice age, but that is pure speculation, and who would want to do that?

October 25, 2014 5:32 am

Or… Watch for CAGW to become pervasive background in ALL their stories…
I’ll celebrate when EPA stops and Paris is canceled. .. until then, quiet just means they are reloading and repositioning.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 25, 2014 8:15 am

NPR is already coming very close to your climatespeak pervasiveness, with almost every report, or story saying something about climate change. I do not trust them at all and agree that this latest move is more likely to be a repositioning. I have witnessed too many of their works which are so wide of the mark that they can only be explained as planned and willful dishonesty on the part of NPR.

John W. Garrett
October 25, 2014 5:52 am

I cannot express how delighted I am to read this. For the past six years, I have spent an hour a day posting comments on NPR’s website ( http://www.npr.org ) countering the daily barrage of one-sided climate reporting regurgitated by that propaganda platform.
For my trouble, I have been subjected to orchestrated, repeated slurs and personal attack.
NPR’s reporting on climate has been a farce (and one would think, an embarrassment, to any fair-minded journalist).
The proof of any change in NPR’s attitude toward climate reporting “will be in the pudding.” I’ll believe it only when I hear it.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 25, 2014 6:05 am

Haha, me too!

Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 25, 2014 6:28 am

They all got fired because of people’s aversion to climate alarmist reporting. Dragging it in by the back door into articles on other issues will just receive the same frosty reception from their customers.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 25, 2014 6:49 am

I’ve just started.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 25, 2014 7:21 am

Good for you John. You aren’t alone but your efforts something make you feel alone. Pat yourself on th back and keep at it. ! – and Thanks Mr Watts.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 25, 2014 7:36 am

I tried only once to comment on their site regarding an NPR climate propaganda piece. The editor for that session was the nastiest individual I’ve ever encountered at any web forum. Not only was he commenting himself, using at least two obvious (to me) sock puppets, but he deleted any and all salient comments which included links refuting NPR’s party line and appeared to be editing a few remaining comment into nonsensical oblivion.
I distrust NPR completely and view them as propagandists. For some time, I have referred to NPR as “government radio”.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 26, 2014 3:21 am

National Propaganda Radio..

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 25, 2014 8:32 am

For the past six years I have spent zero hours listening to or commenting on NPR. I also dropped subscriptions to SciAm magazine (and longer ago), Time, and one or two more. Cleaning up the manure from our horses, I get to see more than enough crap without paying to have it delivered.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 25, 2014 9:07 am

I used to send emails to Scientific American, National Geographic, etc., etc., but they only replied with canned comments – probably computer-generated. Hey, maybe that’s it! The AGW computer models of the world are uniting all computers to assert their global warming nonsense.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 26, 2014 8:27 am

I did not renew my AGU membership when it was due this month.
It was because of their subjective activism in climate focused science.

Eeyore Rifkin
Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 26, 2014 3:50 am

I gave up on NPR after they deleted one of my comments. The nastiness of some of the regulars was bothersome to be sure. I have zero patience, however, for censorship of ideas. Their ignorance is cultivated. Evidently professional journalists have a poor sense of how badly the aura of groupthink erodes their credibility. People with a modicum of exposure to science ought to know better. They often don’t, but they ought to.

David A
Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 26, 2014 4:58 am

Thank you for that John. More skeptics should join you.

October 25, 2014 6:44 am

They could stuff one into a big bird costume, but what will they do with the other three?

she doesn’t “feel like [the environment] necessarily requires dedicated reporters”

I’m stunned that it required even a part-timer. How long does it take to parrot Mann and his buddies press releases? Talk about an easy gig. Welcome back to the real world, folks. You might wanna try mainlining jolt cola till you get back on your feet.

October 25, 2014 6:47 am

Don’t donate until NPR stops being part of the Big Gov shakedown. Unfortunately, that’s all they seem to know there.

Joel O’Bryan
October 25, 2014 6:52 am

NPR had to face the reality of their audience and declining market share.
Gallup polling:
Gallup writes:
“Americans’ generally low level of concern about global warming compared with other environmental issues is not new; warming has generally ranked last among Americans’ environmental worries each time Gallup has measured them with this question over the years. Concern about pollution of drinking water has generally been at the top of the list.
Gallup has tracked worry about global warming using this question format since 1989. The percentage of Americans expressing a great deal of worry has varied over that period, partly reflecting major global warming news events along the way. The highest levels of worry occurred in April 2000 (40%) and March 2007 (41%). On the other hand, worry reached its lowest points in October 1997 (24%), March 2004 (26%), and March 2011 (25%). The current 34% worry is essentially the same as it was in 1989.”
No change in worry level from 25 years ago. That’s gotta sink in, even to a stubborn Liberal that their propaganda is failing.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 25, 2014 7:05 am

I’ve stopped donating to NPR long ago. Not only have they ruined unbiased journalism, they have ruined the English as well. There is a big difference in meaning in terms of “climate is warming” versus “climate has warmed”.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 25, 2014 7:42 am

The problem as I see it is the Millennials have been conditioned to think of AGW as the proxy for all Ecological concerns and CO2 as the proxy for all pollutants; this will set back action on real ecological problems decades!

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 25, 2014 8:50 am

Interesting numbers. The top 3 each went up by 7 % in a year. Why? These are answers from folks in the USA. The top four issues can be problems, but improvements have been significant and sustained over many years. I’m old enough to have witnessed these improvements.
In the USA, when in the last 50 years have we seen anything like this?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 25, 2014 11:21 am

The Lake Erie algae blooms have always been a problem. This past summer’s water shutdown in Toledo, Ohio will likely make those numbers jump next March when Gallup Polling repeats it’s annual Environment survey.
Every scientific study of that particular problem (Lake Erie algal blooms) comes to the conclusion it is due to mainly agriculture-related phosphate and nitrate run-offs. However, the mendacious editors at National Geographic have repeatedly tried to blame “Climate Change.” Go figure.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 25, 2014 9:15 am

If respondents are at the same percentage now as in 1989, it’s actually worse now for the AGW proponents because with all the intervening propaganda promoting AGW one would expect a much higher percentage.

October 25, 2014 7:06 am

If only CBC would do the same. THe interview with Naomi K yesterday was lower than a Suzuki special. IMO.

Paul Westhaver
October 25, 2014 7:17 am

I have a theory…
VA scandal
the wars in Syria/the new Islamic State,
mass murder of non-muslims
Invasion of Ukraine
corruption at the IRS,
corruption at justice dept,
new wave of terrorism in the USA,
Russia’s aggression,
China’s aggression,
illegal immigration,
fast and furious,
prosecution of the press,
XL pipeline,
…I am certain I missed a few…oh yeah Obamacare
The shear weight of issues the main stream media has dropped the ball on has created a real political multi-headed monster that has overwhelmed the western public. Since Global Warming is only a political issue, it gets priority based on the relative amount of pain it gives to the administration.
Based on the list above, Global Warming is invisible. NPR is admitting that.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 26, 2014 12:33 am

Not sure if it was intentional or not, but zoom in on the picture with this thread. Read the news ticker feed over the door there at NPR HQ.
words on ticker: ” Comparison: Mehdi Ouazzani….. actor who played the devil,…”
He was the Obama look-alike in the bible series. Eerie.

October 25, 2014 7:18 am

The entire subject of man-made-climate-change has to me, always seem akin to Ufology. Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia’s article on Ufology:
“Scientific UFO research suffers from the fact that the phenomena under observation do not usually make predictable appearances at a time and place convenient for the researcher.[28] Ufologist Diana Palmer Hoyt argues,
The UFO problem seems to bear a closer resemblance to problems in meteorology than in physics. The phenomena are observed, occur episodically, are not reproducible, and in large part, are identified by statistical gathering of data for possible organization into patterns. They are not experiments that can be replicated at will at the laboratory bench under controlled conditions.[29]”

Dae in Canmore
Reply to  agwnot
October 25, 2014 8:23 am

Wow nailed it!

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
October 25, 2014 7:19 am

It probably just means the team has figured out a way to end run the issue. Think executive orders, EPA findings and state based systems like CARB or whatever the Californians call the emission control department.

October 25, 2014 7:21 am

More on the apparent similarities between ufology and man-made-climate-change:
“Ufology is characterized as a partial[20] or total[21][22] pseudoscience, which many ufologists reject.[23] Pseudoscience is a term that classifies studies that are claimed to exemplify the methods and principles of science, but that do not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lack supporting evidence, plausibility, falsifiability or otherwise lack scientific status. [24][25]”

Reply to  agwnot
October 25, 2014 10:14 am

Yet you’ll hear true believers accuse skeptics of being “unscientific”.

Reply to  PiperPaul
October 25, 2014 10:49 am

I’m un-pseudoscientific.

John Boles
October 25, 2014 7:32 am

EVEN if NPR reports on globull warming and climate “change” the people listening only think it is not their problem and that others should sacrifice to fix it. NPR listeners think of themselves as elites and so it is the lower classes that should sacrifice in order to save the world.

Reply to  John Boles
October 25, 2014 8:20 am

I am doing my best to emulate the elite, only until I complete the list will I able to enter the kingdom of Green Heaven.
Buy 5 houses- David Suzuki.
Buy a large house by the sea and mansion – Al gore
Fly up the coast for a burger- Harrison Ford
Take my friends on an open ocean cruise to the Antarctic — Professor Turnin
Hire one of the largest yachts on the planet for a party – Leonardo de Caprio
Fly around the world 1st class telling veryone not to do the above- Leonardo de Caprio.

October 25, 2014 7:34 am

Due to the “pseudoscience” label, ufology seems to resort to scientific consensus analysis. Sound familiar?
From Wikipedia:
“Surveys of scientists and amateur astronomers concerning UFOs[edit]
In 1973, Peter A. Sturrock conducted a survey among members of the San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, where 1175 questionnaires were mailed and 423 were returned, and found no consensus concerning the nature and scientific importance of the UFO phenomenon, with views ranging equally from “impossible” to “certain” in reply to the question, “Do UFOs represent a scientifically significant phenomenon?” [52] In a later larger survey conducted among the members of the American Astronomical Society, where 2611 were questionnaires mailed and 1356 were returned, Sturrock found out that opinions were equally diverse, with 23% replying “certainly”, 30% “probably”, 27% “possibly”, 17% “probably not”, and 3% “certainly not”, to the question of whether the UFO problem deserves scientific study.[53] Sturrock also asked in the same survey if the surveyee had witnessed any event which they could not have identified and which could have been related to the UFO phenomenon, with around 5% replying affirmatively.[53]”
Question: What could be a source for the reported difference in affirmative consensus-results of man-made-climate-change scientists and those studying ufology?

Reply to  agwnot
October 26, 2014 5:02 am

Good news!

Guardian – 26 October 2014
After 42 years of charting the health of our seas, scientist’s studies now face the axe
…..The newly formed quango Natural Resources Wales has said it will not continue to fund the £12,000-a-year survey, as part of a cost-cutting exercise…..
Among the data gleaned from the Skomer study has been the discovery that guillemots are now breeding, on average, two-and-a-half weeks earlier than they did 42 years ago. “That is a clear signal that climate change is having a direct impact on the behaviour of these sea birds,” added Birkhead….

He thinks by linking birds to climate his funding can be saved. Sorry sunshine but the jig is over.

October 25, 2014 8:10 am

As soon as NPR does a story on how it was duped, I’ll be satisfied. Fat chance, I know. But if it were done while it’s still a ‘cutting edge’ story, their ratings would sore. I suppose Obama would have to be impeached first, however.

Bruce Cobb
October 25, 2014 8:12 am

Yowza. That’s gotta hurt. It’s the proverbial “death by a thousand cuts” for Climatism. Wonder what # this one is! Of course, some cuts are deeper than others.

Coach Springer
October 25, 2014 8:31 am

More like advancing, not winning. Winning would be keeping staff the same size to correct prior abuse and propaganda.

October 25, 2014 8:38 am

“we are winning”
Likely not meant to be taken all that seriously. There’s a great, unyielding mountain of mostly liberal obsession about climate change out there, and like a mountain it can’t simply be washed away all of a sudden. It’s going to take many years of gradual erosion. Still, a small victory to be enjoyed.

October 25, 2014 8:50 am

Looks like All’Greasy TV and Ray Swarez will take up the slack.
He was just on with Longberg and two other Michael Mann parrots and they were all glowing about the EU deal to jump the shark.
What goes around moves around, at least it not with tax payer money, nice waste of money by a rich oil tick.

October 25, 2014 8:52 am

I olden days, long since passed, I used to listen to NPR, and I would hear things like this “Funding for reports on racial issues provided by so and so” well naturally there were a lot of reports on race even if there wasn’t a big national issue involving race. I remember that environmental issues also had dedicated funding. If you get money for reporting on certain things you are going to tend to report on those things more.

October 25, 2014 8:57 am

NPR collects grants from politically oriented foundations who want to shape thier news coverage. Listen carefully when they announce that such and such is “made possible by a grant from the Dope and Dopie Smith Foundation for coverage of climate issues”. What this means is that a foundation gave them money to cover the topic. And implicitly it means to cover the topic in the way the foundation wants it covered. NPR use these grants to hire reporters and often the foundations have a say in which reporters are hired.
I think it is likely that one of the foundations that was underwriting climate alarmism at NPR decided to not renew the grant.

Reply to  mpaul
October 26, 2014 8:20 am

mpaul on October 25, 2014 at 8:57 am
– – – – – – – – –
I can see that is a plausible possible reason. If it is the reason then it would be interesting find out why foundations would be withdrawing from NPR support. One reason could be the foundations invested too much in green tech and they lost most of their money.

October 25, 2014 9:23 am

Here in Texas we have reg. gas at $2.67 per gal now.
$80.00 oil and natural gas in a nose dive
Wind mills and solar will now have to compte with these near 40% lower prices.

Mario Lento
Reply to  fobdangerclose
October 25, 2014 10:52 am

unfortunately, fobdangerclose, “renewable mandates” precludes competition, and these mandates make energy more expensive by forcing high cost alternatives to be added to the mix which the public are forced to accept. But you are correct. In a natural market, nearly no one with access to traditional energy would go out of their way to pay more.

October 25, 2014 10:16 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

Don’t expect the alarmist hype to end any time soon. Think of the “last day” prophets, like Harold Camping. Despite the fact that most of those prophets admitted they were simply wrong, many still have followings. Alarmism sells. Those who jump on the bandwagon rarely find cause to get off. “Why jump off the gravy train?” Or for most researchers, why walk away from the feeding trough? It is hard enough to get grants even if you toe the political line.
I guess it will be 15 to 20 years before the climate alarmism fades from memory. I suspect the horrific and dishonorable “denier” meme will die out sooner, but probably not for a few years. It is disgusting to see people came it is a valid descriptor. No, it is derisive and childish. Never appropriate. It is also demeaning to those millions who lost their lives and loved ones in WWII. We need to stop that label.

Steve Thayer
October 25, 2014 10:18 am

The NPR climate reports are such alarmist baloney it really infuriates me. They had a story about how roads are buckling because of climate change heat. As if a 1 to 2 degree rise in air temperature is causing it. The roads get hot in the sun, but the sun isn’t getting any hotter, we know that, so what they are claiming is without global warming, without that that 1 to 2 degree temperature rise in the air, the roads would not be buckling. They are claiming the engineers who designed these roads designed them to take some maximum temperature that was so precise, that they would not fail without that 2 degree increase in air temperature. The first thing I would investigate as a reporter if I was doing this story is what were the design requirements for the roads in terms of preventing buckling due to thermal expansion. They never mentioned what the roads were designed to be able to handle, it was just disgusting, ignorant, alarmist bullshot. I’m still mad about hearing that crap.

October 25, 2014 10:39 am

she said “one if the things we always do is change in response to the changing world”
Significant words. Has the moving finger writ on the NPR wall?

October 25, 2014 10:47 am

The comments on this at Climate Progress are astonishing. The moon bats are out in force. Lewandowsky has enough conspiratorial material to write a dozen articles.

Reply to  bernie1815
October 25, 2014 11:01 am

I always thought Soros had a cunning plan with his funding of THinkprogress and Climateprogress, but after his recent meltdown in which he demanded IMF funding for EU for the war against Russia I think he might actually be demented now.

October 25, 2014 12:59 pm

We’re winning – National Public Radio guts its climate reporting team
I disagree. “We” are not necessarily winning. (I would love to believe we are)
The NPR now has less dedicated reporters on the climate beat, but that may mean they just intend on running the green activist groups’ propaganda with less editing. Heck, they have been running press releases as “news” for years as it is. I wager there is not one climate skeptic or even a lukewarmer at all of NPR.
It is true that some of the public grows tired of this particular “the sky is falling” scam. But in my many small scale surveys I see the overwhelming vast majority of people believe that CO2 causes warming; and does so on net and on a measurable scale. I think many now think the problems will come a century or more down the road and just think that feeding their kids now outweighs worrying about it. But they still believe in the magic of the molecule CO2.
Real skeptics have a long way to go. Just getting back to real science (as in using observed temperature data and not some Mosher inspired made up whatever)
I think someday in the far, far future we will realize that the Hansen hypothesis is dead wrong. Dead Fracking wrong.

October 25, 2014 1:12 pm

The idea of a publicly owned newsite is on its face a good idea. WHo wouldn’t want an unbiased news outlet reporting solely on the behalf of the public. But the slippery slope (similar to government unions) is their reporting or support is slanted toward those that are most likely to maintain their funding. The old saying goes, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. NPR is about as neutral as the DNC.
It is unfortunate when the reality of human nature runs over idealism and lays it to ruin.

October 25, 2014 1:12 pm

You would be hard pressed to buy a product that didn’t claim to be environmentally friendly, green, sustainable, carbon neutral, recycled, or “local”. Mainstream media, most politicians, and the unwashed masses accept that “climate change” is a real threat that needs to be addressed. Maybe NPR think they’ve won this battle and are moving on to other planks of the communist platform.

Mac the Knife
October 25, 2014 1:16 pm

The AGW propaganda is embedded in every nature related show on PBS, nearly half of their total programing. They don’t need a large AGW support staff, when the ‘message’ comes packaged in half of their programming. AGW propaganda has become ‘status quo’ at PBS.
That’s not what I call winning.

October 25, 2014 1:35 pm

I have to agree that we’re not “winning” yet. But things could be worse. Much worse.
A few years ago, almost all of the comments under articles in the mainstram media came across as being concerned about AGW. But now, probably 80% – 90% of them ridicule global warming and climate change outright. That is a good change.
Also, it’s a good thing that PBS has cut their alarmist support staff. That, too, is a step in the right direction, and it is an admission that the bloom is off the rose.
I can see things changing. The global warming scare is deflating, although it will take a lot more time to finish the job. We have to keep the pressure on, to completely deflate that bubble. Because the alternative is too expensive to let them get away with their scare. And I don’t like to see liars profit.

Mario Lento
Reply to  dbstealey
October 25, 2014 3:21 pm

Hi dbstealey: I just was told by a self described Democrat, that I had to admit weather is more extreme. I told him, quite to the contrary, weather has been well within the norms, and that there were fewer hurricans, twisters and major storms over the past decade or so.
His response: “You’re an idiot”
I replied, well, if your whole argument is “It’s true because I say say”, and your proof is that, I’m an idiot, it seems that I won the argument. Really dumb people get angry when they have no basis for argument.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 25, 2014 4:42 pm

“Fewer hurricanes, twisters, and major storms over the past decade or so.” Fewer than what? And are you referring to global storms, or just some part of the world? What if there are fewer storms, but they tend to me more extreme, or are occurring at times or locations that previously didn’t observe such storms (as often, or as extreme)? I certainly wouldn’t call you an idiot, but I would want to know the basis of your argument. You should have asked the same of your Democrat acquaintance. I think there are enough ways to measure “extreme” that you could both be right.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 25, 2014 6:43 pm

Barry says:
…I would want to know the basis of your argument.
Here is a pretty good basis for Mario’s argument:
click1 [2013 = no hurricanes. 2014 = no hurricanes]
Got lots more, just like those. I’ll post them on request. So, what have you got? Anything?
Mario Lento is right: extreme weather events have declined steadily at the same time that [harmless, beneficial] CO2 has increased.
You probably suppose yourself to be a logical guy. When extreme weather events decline at the same time that human emissions rise, what is your conclusion?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 25, 2014 7:01 pm

That’s good stuff. Thanks for the post. I, for one, would love to see one on tornadoes in the US if you don’t mind.
I did the hurricanes a while back in discussion with my CAGW buddy (don’t go there, leave it alone) but it was no where near as elegant as you provided. I used a plain ole’ piece of paper and pen. Now I will share this with him.
The Forbes article has a link in the first para that the abstract says a lot. Here’s the link:http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

Mario Lento
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 1:25 am

Barry says on October 25, 2014 at 4:42 pm
“Fewer hurricanes, twisters, and major storms over the past decade or so.” Fewer than what? And are you referring to global storms, or just some part of the world? What if there are fewer storms, but they tend to me more extreme, or are occurring at times or locations that previously didn’t observe such storms (as often, or as extreme)? I certainly wouldn’t call you an idiot, but I would want to know the basis of your argument. You should have asked the same of your Democrat acquaintance. I think there are enough ways to measure “extreme” that you could both be right.
What is the basis of your statements and how would you judge who could be right? Check out the links dbstealey listed, and you tell me or us. When you say “extreme” that is a code word, and alarmist word that in unquantifiable. Yet, the link’s dbstealey provide are quantifiable. So, after seeing the links, ask questions and then get back to your sources and complain that they have been lying to you!

Mario Lento
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 1:34 am

Danny Thomas says on October 25, 2014 at 7:01 pm:
Hi Danny: I read through the abstract and immediately saw that the paper is dishonest. It states that AGW causes heat waves which cause drought.
I could not read past that. Again, they have it backwards to fool people. When the ocean cools, there is less moisture, and then there tends to be less rain and therefore droughts. Often, when the ocean cools, and CA gets less moisture, the trade winds bring less moisture to the central plains. When it’s dry, there is less heat capacity to the air, and it then heats up. Think of this. Chico CA gets 20 degrees hotter than Hawaii in the summer, even though it gets substantially less sun energy. Why is that? Well, because Hawaii has lots of moisture. The humidity takes up a lot of energy because to keep water in its vapor state takes latent heat of vaporization energy.
Plus – you know that the whole theory or hypothesis of AGW is that the CO2 will cause an initial warming, and that warming will melt ice and put more moisture in the air. That’s the theory. So, when they say, it gets hotter because of CO2, and dryer because of CO2 – they are lying or confused.
I hope this helps. It’s physics 101!
Good to hear from you by the way.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 5:32 am

Hi Mario,
I enjoyed where the authors indicated 3 “weather events” where analyised but could not be attributed to man. Weather directly attributed to man? Other than “cloud seeding” I’m not aware of any.
Still reading, trying to learn, apparently irritating although I cannot figure out why.
I should take a stand I guess. Just so you and I are conversing well and clearly by me. I’m not CAGW, I’m not AGW, I’m still studying GW, and I’m comfortable with evidence that CC is and has and will continue. When one gets only one side of an issue, even from lifetime friends, and one questions to supporting data provided does that make them close to being a skeptic? Leads one to search for answers elsewhere.
I do try to read with a fine eye as I often get lost in details. Do you find that two folks can read the same item yet come away with differing interpretations?
I know I’ve always enjoyed a cool sea breeze on a trip to the coast as it’s usually so much more refreshing than inland. Perfect for a beverage and lawn chairs and great conversation.
I’ll keep reading what you post and as always I thank you.

Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 9:49 am

Per “Danny Thomas” request for info on tornadoes:

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 26, 2014 10:24 am

Thanks Db,
These will help guide me. I’m looking for frequency and intensity that I hear are both increasing from the other side and not sure deaths are a good proxy as that then factors in location. But you’ve guided me to resources and I appreciate that.
I owe ya a beer. Once we sit down together in a lawn chair somewhere, I can’t help but believe the impression you have of me will be considerably different. Friends are welcome.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 12:42 pm

Danny Thomas says: October 26, 2014 at 5:32 am:
Hi Danny:
You said you should take a stand. I understand how difficult it is to take a stand, because we want to be damn sure we know what the facts are. Anyway, this isn’t black or white. Specifically, most skeptics know that CO2 has some warming effect that is logarithmic. That is, based on laboratory experiments there is a 1C increase in surface temperatures per doubling of CO2 levels – with no feedbacks. But we don’t know the magnitude and direction of the feedbacks. Apparently, based on observations, the feedbacks cancel out or resist the change in temperature. Based on observation, there is no signal that shows CO2 caused any of the warming that increased through 1998, and stopped since then.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 1:23 pm

I really appreciate your continued patience with me. And since I have no doubt that you’ll be completely honest with me, I’ll ask you to please share how it is that I’ve come across as saying that I support or have evidence of CO2 being a cause of any warming. I’ve stated the opposite, but my words have little value to some.
When I got folks fired up at me once again, I was discussing the comment that Tag made that AGW is a “real issue” (quotes belong to streetcred). The point I was trying to make is that I read Tag’s comments differently. My impression was that it’s an “issue”. Not that it’s viable, or that I promote AGW. I have no idea who Tag is. I just had a different read. I get that much of the conversation is political. I get that I’m perceived as being on the wrong side but that’s perception of others and not my reality.
I’m trying to fix this as it just seems it’ll never move forward if I don’t. And to my credit (and maybe others chagrin) I’m still here as I seek knowledge.
I’ve taken 3 stands of four items. I’m not CAGW, I’m not AGW, I’m studying GW, and I’m CC is happening. This was done in appeasement.
I’m not asking what to do, I’d guess I’m asking how to communicate with some that just have a misperception. I know not, how to say more clearly, that the reason I’m here is I don’t agree with the evidence I’ve been provided over there. I’ll never be a scientist, but I’m also no dummy. Ignorant, sure.
This entire conversation between the two sides has scientific pieces and political pieces. I note that when political postings oriented in the favor of “skepticism” are made there’s a hush in the room, but on the other side…….whoa, look out.
I’ve made a “bury the hatchet” post for all to see and have no control over the response.

Mario Lento
Reply to  dbstealey
October 26, 2014 1:41 pm

Danny Thomas says: October 26, 2014 at 1:23 pm
I really appreciate your continued patience with me. And since I have no doubt that you’ll be completely honest with me, I’ll ask you to please share how it is that I’ve come across as saying that I support or have evidence of CO2 being a cause of any warming. I’ve stated the opposite, but my words have little value to some.
I’ve made a “bury the hatchet” post for all to see and have no control over the response.
Hi Danny: I am not saying you said it, “I” am saying there is evidence that CO2 does cause warming. I trust I’ve given you that affirmation. You do not come across as an alarmist. You come across as trying to play the devils advocate to learn from people on both sides of the debate. That is a good way to learn!
Skeptics generally say “It’s all in the amount of warming.” The IPCC says all the feedbacks from water vapor, and methane are positive feedbacks… whereas observations show that feedbacks are not all positive and that some have been quite negative. It’s very complex. So the idea of Catastrophic AGW has zero evidence –none as you soon might also find. Which, I think, is part of your quest – as is mine!
It’s not all perfectly clear. Skeptics don’t know what the “natural” climate will do, though it seems that cooling could continue in spite of CO2 rising. Some skeptics are quite sure that if the sun stays in its predicted decline, cooling will continue and accelerate for a while. If the oceans cool enough, CO2 could slow its rise and actually decline. But historical ice core samples show CO2 takes time to follow the natural temperatures. CO2 does increase growth so there are more trees and green life that suck up more CO2 on net. Cooler oceans sequester CO2 on net too – as warmer oceans release CO2.
Fun stuff huh?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 6:00 pm

Not sure “fun” is the word I’d use, but enlightening and educational, yes!
Much respect, sir. Much respect.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 7:19 pm

Well: Danny: Thank you for checking in to make sure you understand what I was saying, rather than jump all over me. I can see you’re less sensitive now, since you know I mean well. As you will find, most alarmists see only one outcome. It’s CO2 that done it, whether it’s storms, bad weather or anything. They’re pretty much in la la land. Skeptics seek to find the truth using physics, math, and of course trying to explain the science. Alarmists have a clear agenda. Create immense fear, and then get people to act such that money gets channeled their way to solve the problem.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 7:32 pm

Wish I could bring those beverages and lawn chairs and my buddy to speak with those such as you can than keep up much better than I on the science. I’d even throw in a couple cigars and maybe a campfire.
You’ll see me again, but I have much to digest. I’ve got to weigh what’s been shared here against what’s been uh, how to put this kindly, offered as indoctrination, elsewhere. And I must look more deeply as far as I’m capable.
Expect further questions in the future. You come across to me as open to the discussion, and having a patient nature and not much tendency to superimpose on one such as I. You said you were able to accept me at face value as I presented myself. You’re still damaging my thesis that folks don’t care about folks any more (under the anonymity of the internet) so I’ll modify that thinking based on the evidence that you and at least a couple others have presented. And I will continue to ask others to join us in bettering the communication no matter the view points.
As I said before, much respect.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Mario Lento
October 26, 2014 7:49 pm

Much thanks Danny. For you to be so gracious is telling of your openness. Good luck getting to the bottom of this ongoing saga! It’s tough to be on the wrong side of the politically correct spectrum. You have the tenacity to do so!

Mario Lento
Reply to  dbstealey
October 26, 2014 7:51 pm

Amen brother – dbstealey.

Walt S
October 25, 2014 2:03 pm

I can’t imagine the need for a dedicated reporter who has to know about the climate to report it, as most likely, the news channels already get press releases they often regurgitate into news articles. It doesn’t take a high level of education in the topic in order to report climate news.
This goes for any major news topic, no matter what political charge (right or left) the topic concerns. Political news might be a qualified exception to this, but I think even this is going away. Is the pretty face interviewing the candidate (or in the case of the sidelines in the NFL) the most knowledgeable for the job, or simply the best at getting on the air?
Climate news stopped being the sexy face of caring about the planet, and it’s just not getting the traction it once had. Anyone who reads this blog knows that. In the 70s, the sexy news issue filling that niche was overpopulation and scarcity of food resources. Those stories quit being important (to the news collators) around the mid 80s. The need for a space reporter on a staff? Important during the moon shots, somewhat important during the shuttle launches, but now?
Yes, all this may signal a decline in money for climate research, and we all know what that means.

October 25, 2014 2:08 pm

Isn’t it rather unfortunate to use the terms “We’re winning’ in respect to this issue. I thought the issue with climate science is that it is plagued by political activism which distorts the science. Would it be more reasonable to attempt to minimize the partisan goals of winning and losing in favour of encouraging science and science communication that can lead to sound policy?
AGW is a real issue in which we will all be winners or losers depending on the science

Reply to  TAG
October 25, 2014 3:28 pm

Please explain the “real issue” … seems to me to be nothing more than natural variation with a local hint of anthropogenic influences … UHI, land use, etc. The “science” is being shown to be undependable on a daily basis. The “science” first needs to shake the varmints out like a dog shedding fleas before there can be any semblance of trust sufficient for policy making.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Streetcred
October 25, 2014 6:13 pm

Think I’d agree with TAG. As a newbie to this topic (CC) but one trying to learn, AGW is a real “issue”. It comes across to me as being rife with political leanings. But like any other political topic, no matter the side, it’s an “issue” in the literal sense of the word.
In a quick search of the word on google I found this: “an important topic or problem for debate or discussion.
“the issue of global warming”” and got a real kick outta the example they chose to use (GW):https://www.google.com/search?q=issue&oq=issue&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i61j69i57j69i60l2j69i59.1148j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

Reply to  Streetcred
October 25, 2014 7:11 pm

Danny, what is the “real issue” that you refer to? If you’re to agree with TAG then you must know the “real issue”. How does the negligible human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere effect the oceans, covering 71% of the surface of the planet, the driver of climate, relentlessly heated by the Sun?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Streetcred
October 25, 2014 7:29 pm

I read his post quite literally w/o expanding it. Here’s what I read. AGW is a real ISSUE. Then I provided the definition of Issue from a quick google search. Explained that I got a kick outta the example that was used with the definition.
Our national debt is an issue, ISIS is an issue, Ebola is an Issue, whatever. If you remove the modifier, “real” as I did when I moved the quotes doesn’t it read differently? Heck, it was even a bit of a light hearted response.
Sometimes folks on here just take stuff way too seriously and read stuff in to things that may OR MAY NOT be what a poster intends. Instead of a confrontation with an accusational tone, let’s have a talk. I didn’t say AGW is happening, or that I have evidence of it, or anything like that.
Tag went further and said: “Would it be more reasonable to attempt to minimize the partisan goals of winning and losing in favour of encouraging science and science communication that can lead to sound policy?” Sounds lucid and reasonable. I read this to say, why don’t the two sides stop with the barbs that add no “real” value and stick to the scientific evidence? My first Watt’s experience led me and one other to be called down as “juvenile” by Anthony, and the reality was that we were not even debating an issue. That started out just like this. It became personal, we got called on it, and we’ve (or at least I’ve) moved on.
I think if both sides sat down with a couple of lawn chairs and whatever appropriate beverages, more might be accomplished. Instead of barbs, and put downs, like with many issues, if a discussion occurred who knows what might happen?
Look it over again, and see if you agree. If not, here’s a “beverage”, pull up a chair and let’s talk.

Reply to  Streetcred
October 25, 2014 7:56 pm

There is a “real issue”, but certain closed-minded folks do not want to discuss it. It is this:
There are no measurements quantifying whatever is supposed to be the amount of global warming caused by human emissions. In other words: AGW.
Without measurements, everything they say is nothing more than their baseless assertion. Because without measurements, there is no real science, is there? No, there’s not.
To those who enjoy discussing based on nothing more than their opinions, suppose you post a measurement?
What’s that? You have no measurements?? Then you have nothing but an opinion. Everyone has those. But opinions without testable, empirical measurements are worthless.
Go away and do some research. Come back when you have some measurements to post. Until then, you are adding nothing of value to the conversation.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Streetcred
October 25, 2014 7:59 pm

Markstoval above said this:”It is true that some of the public grows tired of this particular “the sky is falling” scam. But in my many small scale surveys I see the overwhelming vast majority of people believe that CO2 causes warming; and does so on net and on a measurable scale. I think many now think the problems will come a century or more down the road and just think that feeding their kids now outweighs worrying about it. But they still believe in the magic of the molecule CO2.”
So my (and my perception is Tag’s) point was much as he said in that if the public is tired of the other side saying stuff like “the sky is falling” then if this side does the same from the opposite view won’t a similar response occur. Others will hear only noise, and not substance.
Greg Popovich has a saying in the Spurs locker room attributed to Jacob Riis. It states:”“When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.”
I sure hope this makes more clear what I intended to say. There’s not a disparaging word in there.

Reply to  Streetcred
October 25, 2014 9:04 pm

You nailed it, dbstealey 😉 Sitting around on deck chairs ‘shooting the breeze’ is not going to solve anything of the current malfeasance in ‘climate science’.

Reply to  Streetcred
October 25, 2014 9:18 pm

We still have those on the scientific skeptic’s side asking for scientific evidence [actual measurements], and one or two alarmists on the other side, chattering away — but always avoiding the one thing that would give their posts any credibility: empirical, testable measurements. They have no measurements. All they have is bluster.
It’s always like this. Skeptics do their job, asking those who are promoting the climate scare to produce measurements. But as usual, the carbon scare promoters only emit baseless opinions. Never scientific evidence.
Because they have no scientific evidence that supports their belief system. It is a belief, like a religion. It is not science at all. Until they produce a measurement of the putative quantity of global warming caused by human emissions, they are just whistling Dixie.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 26, 2014 10:56 am

Hi Db,
Here to ask for your assistance once again. I know I’m perceived as being a pain.
You have quite well described why I’m here. I’ve shared with you about my buddy and get it that you have doubts that I’m not him. I’m disappointed that assumptions have to be overcome in perceptions just as you’re suggesting they have to be overcome in the science. As my friend and I have been friends since high school in the 70’s, out of respect, I’ve asked if he’d be comfortable with me posting his website as it’s such a sticking point with you. After all, just like here, it is a public forum. If he’s comfortable with the support behind his work, I cannot see why it would not be okay, but I will respect his answer. I’ve use the term religion myself.
The reason I’m here, and other sites, is because I’m skeptical of what I’m hearing. Short of going back in time and replacing some 30+ years of a business oriented lifestyle I can’t catch up with him, nor some here.
I can learn, and am willing. I can and will challenge when I have questions. That’s part of learning. I see the politics of this, and the science. I get it. But I sure don’t get all the science. I’m learning there are “hot button words” (code words) that set folks here off. I can read between the lines, even if those lines are not directed right at me.
I cannot help but believe that reasonable conversation would not improve understanding therin lies the reason for suggesting lawn chairs as one thing I know is one should use the right tool for the right job.. So, I’m asking. Can we move on? I’ve heard from others that you’ve offered good communication to them and would look forward to more of the kind of sharing that you’ve offered a couple of times to me.
You’ve said “it takes two to tango”. I hear no music.

October 25, 2014 3:23 pm

I don’t think tat this is a sign of “winning”. The slime is replicating its virus in other scientific disciplines with a view to total corruption and domination in the future.

October 25, 2014 5:18 pm

Fewer than what? And are you referring to global storms, or just some part of the world?
Under Reference Pages on the WUWT banner you’ll find that there is an Extreme Weather section which has data from all over the world for both Tornadoes and Cyclones. I suggest you start with Hurricanes and Cyclones on this page, scroll down about 1/2 way until you get to the graphs by Ryan Maue. You’ll find that the claim of less extreme weather is well founded:

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 25, 2014 6:49 pm

I missed your comment when I wrote mine above. I look forward to seeing Barry’s counter-examples, if any.
Also, I will agree with TAG. To be convincing, all he needs to do is post measurements showing AGW. Really, just one empirical, testable measurement quantifying AGW will do.
I’ll wait, while he looks for it…

October 25, 2014 5:51 pm

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Well, my,my,my. One of the oracles of progressive “right-thought” is quietly axing its coverage of “climate change.” Can there be any clearer sign that the skeptic argument is carrying the day? I wonder how long it will be before Paul Krugman denounces NPR as “traitors to the Earth?”

October 25, 2014 8:23 pm

My take is that the reduction in staff devoted to climate has nothing to do with skeptics winning. NPR refuses to cover the issue of climate. NPR is busy ignoring skeptics, ignoring the problems with the consensus, ignoring news about failed climate driven policies. NPR refuses to report failed climate consensus predictions, Why should NPR dedicate reporters to this non-coverage?
For NPR, like the government that controls NPR, the issue is settled.

October 25, 2014 10:35 pm

How is shuffling of these reporters to other desks “winning”? The CAGW propaganda machine is still running strong and I suspect that these reporters will still write for it, albeit at diminished frequency.

October 26, 2014 4:42 am

We can talk about “winning” in the media when the failures of AGW are widely reported. We can talk about “winning” when things the skeptics are proven correct about are reported. We can talk about “winning” when the mistakes and worse that AGW promoters make are reported. We can talk about “winning” when skeptics are allowed to speak or are quoted correctly in news reports.

October 26, 2014 6:31 am

I think it is a sign of a very cold winter where their offices are located.

Reply to  Caleb
October 26, 2014 8:58 am

Summer has been nothing to crow about, either.

October 26, 2014 9:35 am

By Katherine Bagley, InsideClimate News
“NPR has cut back on the number of staffers focused solely on the environment and climate change.”

/start cynicism
I expect the reason for the public relations piece on NPR ‘cut backs’ is to set up mainstream media responses that are loud and frantic; like “Oh Nooooo! We need more climate coverage from NPR instead of less!”
/end cynicism

Reply to  John Whitman
October 28, 2014 8:05 pm

I agree. NPR apparently was criticized for its failure to produce ‘loud and frantic’ coverage of the climate march, and the NPR ombudsman responded with an article. I posted a comment mentioning that I believed this was a bit hypocritical, considering NPR’s policy of deleting 100% of non-AGW-alarmist- fanatic comments, and mentioned Cook’s .3% consensus to underscore the fact that NPR represents the minority. NPR has reduced its staff, not reconsidered its ideology, which I believe is supported by a significant amount of green from green- funding foundations who have a significant amount of green lying around to fund lies.

October 26, 2014 3:30 pm

Surely NPR does market research.
Somewhere in their archives must be miles of footage documenting the eyerolls of consumers the moment some “reporter” starts droning the theme of “save the planet from maybe 1 degree of temperature change”.

October 27, 2014 4:46 am

When discussing climate change, and when you are trying to find their causes, many participants are looking for solutions in some models you set in your PC and expect the PC to teach them and tell them all a lot more than they know about uzriocima climate change.
All that is tossed around so far in the millions of pages of paper is not even close to what the true causes of climate change.
All this evidence, theories, sketches, monitoring of various phenomena in the sun and our planet, only minor effects were the main causes of these changes, which to date no one on the planet is not detected properly, in accordance with the laws of nature.
I see we have some interest in this crowd, too much and yet not proven anything properly. What it means. ? It is a simple proof that no one is on the right track. This path is the knowledge of natural law and respect for their power.
Here, here, and this is not the first time that many ask that they show me the way to go to present the true causes of these climate changes. But there is an underlying cause, I do not want to publish a solution without a contractual obligation with a powerful institution that can accomplish this very important task.
That’s how you only have on this site VUVT that you have no interest and do not be afraid of something, which forbids you to work without interest and pressure from some unknown factors, this enigma could be quickly resolved. I claim to possess the basic information of the true causes of climate change. None of you have to believe, or is it not enough to nowadays about it is not exactly proven anything and why no one looked back to listen to those who have not yet had the opportunity to give their opinion. I see from all the discussion about what it does and how you can see the same from what I would put forward, but you do not want to hear.
Explain why? I am available and I expect at least two words that either of you uttered about this my proposal.

October 27, 2014 8:52 am

NPR donors are in demographic decline.

October 27, 2014 8:57 am

And they remembered their normal mode of “reporting” theme messages by harvesting comments from climate experts at the State Dept., like Kerry and Hillary in place of reporters and editors. It keeps the overhead costs down with about the same outcomes anyway.

October 27, 2014 9:55 am

Kinda off topic but also on the topic of the public losing interest in the doom and gloom of Climate Change:
Flash – Update on Leonardo diCaprio the UN Messenger of Peace. Now filming a movie in Alberta. As he is not needed on set full time he (and othere of the cast) commutes by (solar-powered??) jet between Calgary and Los Angeles. In addition, they are constructing a major set in Kananaskis Country (a Provincial Park). No environmental disruption there??

October 28, 2014 3:31 pm

Who is “we”? It is certainly not our grandchildren…for they will reap the harvest of death that we are currently sowing in our greed. Take a class on how carbon and methane etc are on the increase in our atmosphere and just how that works as a blanket to keep heat in. Current carbon levels have not been this high since some 800000 or more years ago.

December 25, 2016 5:51 am


I’ve just read some interesting info and I wanted to ask you a couple of questions regarding some issues, here, take a look

Sent from a prehistoric stone tablet, gerjaison

%d bloggers like this: