The Role of the Media in Aiding and Abetting the Deceptions Seen in Climategate

 

Guest opinion. Dr. Tim Ball

I knew I was having an impact as a skeptic when I received a call from George Monbiot, reporter for The Guardian. I told him as much. I said I would answer questions about the science. Of course, the first question was about funding, because he had already determined the story and only sought quotes to fit the narrative or to pretend he had balance. I said I had never received funding from any energy company and started to talk about the science. The interview ended.

Monbiot did express outrage when the emails were leaked, but it was about the response of the CRU.

“Why was CRU’s response to this issue such a total car crash?”

He then justified their behavior because,

Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science.

Apparently struggling with what went on, he later wrote,

But the deniers’ campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

It appears he was in the dilemma because he had not functioned as a journalist, but as a messenger for the political message about global warming, that he and his newspaper favored. The deception about global warming was only effective because of the aiding and abetting of the mainstream media.

Those most active in pushing the false information were exposed in the leaked Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails. They represented very influential media outlets including The Guardian, The New York Times, and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). They sought information by indicating their willingness to carry the message. For example, on July 23, 2009 Seth Borenstein, a national science writer for the Associated Press, sent an email to the CRU). He wrote,

“Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Watchya think?”

WUWT identified the unprofessional nature of the relationship in a December 12, 2009 article. They were all willingly, albeit unknowingly, used by the powerful – the people they ostensibly despise.

In my recent article about the motive behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deception on global warming, I challenged people to offer an alternative suggestion to my proposition that it was about political power and control. “Follow the money” was the predominant comment. It is true that for most in the lower echelons, funding and career enhancement were predominant (Figure 1).

clip_image002

Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Or as Machiavelli more pungently said, “One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.”

However, money was not the reason for the cabal who orchestrated the entire deception. They were members of the Club of Rome because of their power. Sometimes that power came from their wealth, but most were already wealthy. Some, like Al Gore or Maurice Strong, made additional money from their involvement, but that was not the motivating factor. Gore would have given all that money for the 1500 votes that kept him from the US Presidency. As Lord Acton (1837-1869) famously said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What is rarely quoted is the sentence that follows, which reads, “Great men are almost always bad men.” Acton elaborated on that idea with this variation,

“And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that.”

Everybody knows information is power. Control of power through control of information has evolved, like everything else. Those with power needed a conduit for their version of information. In the global warming deception, they found a media willing to be the messenger. Instead of performing their original role of exposing and limiting power, they aided and abetted.

The US Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances to prevent concentration of power. They knew the public did not have time to monitor what was actually going on, so, the media was given “freedom of the press” power to investigate and expose what was going on.

One part of the United States Constitution First amendment prohibits the making of any law, abridging the freedom of speech, or infringing on the freedom of the press.

In those days the media was the Fourth Estate, a term posited by Edmund Burke, author of the important adage that

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

But Burke also identified the power of the Fourth Estate when he said,

There are three estates in Parliament but in the Reporters Gallery yonder there sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all (sic).

English poet William Cowper (1731 – 1800) summarized the power in his 1782 poem, “The Progress of Error”. The focus was already sensationalism and exploitation of fear.

How shall I speak of thee or thy power address,

The God of our idolatry, the press?

By thee, religion, liberty and laws

Exert their influence and advance their cause;

By thee worse plagues than Pharaohs land befell,

Diffused, make Earth the vestibule of Hell:

Thou fountain, at which drink the good and wise;

Thou ever-bubbling spring of endless lies;

Like Eden’s dead probationary tree,

Knowledge of good and evil is from thee!

This speaks to the control of the media up until recently. The global warming deception may be the last great fraud perpetrated on the people and promoted by the mainstream media. Today, the Internet supersedes the power of the media to control the message, and therefore be vulnerable to control by the powerful. It is why powerful people are trying to limit the Internet.

Stephen Cooper identified the role of websites, like WUWT, in his 2006 book, Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers as the Fifth Estate. It is no surprise that the growth of these web sites was coincident with the decline of the mainstream media. Just as politics overtook science, so it overtook the media, but it was the old politics of party affiliation that people despised, but still practiced in national and regional legislatures. The reaction was polarization and extremism. Politics adopted the dictum, that if you are not with me, you must be against me. Media became more and more sensationalist, so it wasn’t just the sky that was falling, but the entire universe. In both cases the facts became the casualty. Farhad Manjoo identified the result in his book True Enough: Learning to Live in Post-Fact Society. The Amazon abstract says,

 

Why has punditry lately overtaken news? Why do lies seem to linger so long in the cultural subconscious even after they’ve been thoroughly discredited? And why, when more people than ever before are documenting the truth with laptops and digital cameras, does fact-free spin and propaganda seem to work so well? True Enough explores leading controversies of national politics, foreign affairs, science, and business, explaining how Americans have begun to organize themselves into echo chambers that harbor diametrically different facts—not merely opinions—from those of the larger culture.

Manjoo overlooks the major problem, namely that most people don’t know the facts or how to interpret them objectively. Wikipedia is a classic example of the problem. It addresses the need for as much information, from as many perspectives as possible. These noble, but naïve, objectives were quickly abused as WUWT identified. In climate, William Connolley’s monopoly and biased control of entries, was an example. Most people have no idea whether, what they are reading is fact or fiction, or fact with a political bias.

As this was evolving education, which was always about indoctrination rather than education, failed to teach basic skills of analysis and interpretation. The word, discrimination, which traditionally meant “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another”, became politically incorrect, socially and intellectually.

There was fierce debate about whether the CRU emails were leaked or hacked. Beyond the legal ramifications, was the important point that somebody thought that, what was going on in climate science was scientifically and morally wrong. Release date of the emails in November 2009 was to block further political action by the Conference of the Parties scheduled for Copenhagen. At that meeting, the plan was to introduce global taxation and transfer of wealth with political control that transcended national boundaries. Apparently the “leaker”, unlike Monbiot, thought that this was a bridge too far when based on false and deliberately manufactured information. Sorry folks, but the end does not justify the means.

4.5 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

369 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 29, 2014 4:31 pm

Dr. Ball, in my humble opinion a very worthy post.
As background, Media ‘truth’ in the internet era was explored somewhat rigorously in The Arts of Truth. Media complicity in AGW was exposed multiple times in Blowing Smoke, most graphically in the eponymous essay.
Part of the media issue is a lack of minimal due diligence–something Monbiot is apparently incapable of. Thatnmakes them mere amplifiers for whatever smoke,themsupposed experts are blowing to keep,their research grant gravy trains going. Blowing Smoke essays Shell Games (corals and oysters and ‘ocean acidification), Greenhouse Effects (poleward spread of pests), and Snows of Kilimanjaro (Al Gore and Inconvenient Truth) make this clear by example.

Zeke
November 29, 2014 4:44 pm

Tim Ball says, “In my recent article about the motive behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deception on global warming, I challenged people to offer an alternative suggestion to my proposition that it was about political power and control.” And he adds, “However, money was not the reason for the cabal who orchestrated the entire deception.”
Not to be too picky, but they do need at least 100,000,000 dollars per year. That’s for annual costs of running the World Empire (“United Nations”).
They also seek a small degree of political legitimacy, so that the World Empire appears voluntary on the part of the betrayed nations.
As we already see, $100 bn/year for the World Empire will be based on the betrayal and deception of individual countries and citizens, for none of us have ever agreed to it; but if it can be done with some level of willingness in tiny degrees, this is considered to have been done with consent.
The $100 billion dollars per year may have been the basis of the secret talks with Beijing.

xyzzy11
Reply to  Zeke
November 29, 2014 6:13 pm

100,000,000 = 100 million (not billion)

Zeke
Reply to  xyzzy11
November 29, 2014 6:43 pm

One World-State Empire $100,000,000,000.00 per annum.
Cash only. No checks. Subjugation guaranteed.
Sorry, still making a bit merry here for the holiday. Would you believe I meant to write one thousand one hundred millions, in the English manner? (:

eyesonu
November 29, 2014 4:48 pm

Thank you Dr. Ball
There are numerous interesting comments on this thread.

brent
November 29, 2014 5:28 pm

Mike, Be aware that Tickell dislikes Tom Wigley; this isn’t hearsay – I
know this for a fact. After Tom published that “delaying -emissions
cutbacks – scenario” analysis in Nature, Tickell told me that Tom was
irresponsible, & had damaged the likelihood of the cc issue being addressed
seriously. There is also the baggage about Tickell pinching some of CRU’s
ideas & Tom telling him so rather unsubtly. So – he needs to be the “sort
of top research scientist we know is interested”.
Trevor
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2088.txt&search=wigley
Grubb is good at impressing ignorant people. Crispin is not only ignorant
(in the economics area) but also a *real* snake in the grass. What he
will do is vote on the basis of what he can get out of it, not on the
basis of knowledge-based and fair judgement. At least Woods and Mason
will be more balanced — but their knowledge in these areas is also
superficial. The trouble is that all three *think* they know more than
they do. I think you are up against it. However, good luck.
Cheers,
Tom
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=5173.txt&search=schellnhuber

November 29, 2014 5:56 pm

I’m always impressed by Dr. Tim Ball’s extensive learning and writing style and usually agree with
most everything he writes. I do think that he often skates pretty close the conspiracy and self-congratulatory edge. I wish we had more critical thinking about Ball’s question, “an alternative suggestion to my proposition that it was about political power and control” because the answer is very important and so is the way we frame the answer if we want to convince others.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  Doug Allen
November 30, 2014 8:18 am

I wish we had more critical thinking about Ball’s question, “an alternative suggestion to my proposition that it was about political power and control” because the answer is very important and so is the way we frame the answer if we want to convince others.

Well, analytically, first off, Money & Power aren’t the motives, they’re the goals or objectives. Understanding motivation can be extremely useful & empowering, but it is usually difficult & risky. (Animals hide motivations, because revealing them makes them vulnerable.) Goals, otoh, are relatively easy, and safe to discuss.
Goals are like checkers, while motives & motivations are deep-chess.
If we just want to look at goals, and only use ‘motive’ as a synonym, then alternative explanations for the IPCC’s activities are simpler & safer than digging into motivations.
The UN itself is an artificially, even farcically created Bureaucracy. The IPCC is an ‘office’ or portfolio, within an organization that is removed from the usual cultural, societal and National ‘medium’ in which natural bureaucracies are embedded.
I’m open to the possibility that the UN is a bought & paid-for low-grade boogeyman (among other quasi-covert roles). So many either angrily denounce it, or snidely snicker & leer at it … and the UN seems to go out of its way to reinforce these reactions. Here’s how this might ‘work’, both for the UN and for those who write the support-checks.
Like Cuba. It does not seem farfetched, that long ago Cuba figured out that they are a much bigger & more-important frog as the perennial whipping-boy of the USA, than as just-another Latin American, Caribbean nation-state. It’s their claim-to-fame. It’s leverage & cred, in their relations with others. They aren’t a bastion of ideology on their island: they’re small-time dairy-farmers, milking a cow that the USA ensures has enough grass.
The UN arguably attracts its most notice & notoriety, as a threat to or erosion of National Identity. People who may normally shun the appearance or symbols of Patriotism, often become quite defensive of – and appreciative of – their own country, in response to UN ‘incursions’. In the USA, this is a big effect & dynamic – driven directly by the UN.
The UN also serves as a bought & paid-for ‘back-bench’, or ‘loyal opposition’. For it to appear to the world at large that the Sole Super Power is unchallenged, can become ‘unhealthy’. But wait! How can that be?! See – the USA is plastered with UN spit-wads! America is a pincushion of UN-prickles!
Especially following the demise of the USSR, and the continuing struggles of Europe to create a credible competitor to the USA (modeled on it), the UN serves extensively as challenger, adversary … a gadfly which brings smiles to many – even in the US.
Honestly, the idea that we were going to use computers to divine what the climate would do, always had severe believability-problems. Even today, we cannot create adequate models, and computers lack capacity. How is it that we were supposed to have been able to do those kind of things, back in the IBM PC days? Digital chicken-guts.
Decades back, we had a lot of Third World. Today, we have a lot of Emerging Economies … who are VASTLY overshadowed by Established Economies. Keeping the up-and-comer’s morale up, keeping them in the game against competition that can simply own them lock stock and barrel at any time … this is a quite pervasive & serious difficulty.
The antics of the IPCC serve multiple pragmatic, international, global-relations and ‘narrative’ roles. All of them – like the real status & role of Cuba – kept between the lines and behind a smokescreen.
“Conspiracy”? No. Business as usual.

November 29, 2014 6:06 pm

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
The end “never” justifies the means no matter what Saul Alinsky said!

Seve Fitzpatrick
November 29, 2014 6:32 pm

Tim Ball,
“In my recent article about the motive behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deception on global warming, I challenged people to offer an alternative suggestion to my proposition that it was about political power and control.”
Step back, take a deep breath. Your last post was over the top and grossly inappropriate.
Yes, there are some people who want to use warming driven by GHG’s to advance specific leftists and green political objectives. Heck, there are people who would use ANY excuse to advance those same objectives. There are people who would use any excuse to advance a wide range of political objectives, not just green/left objectives (think ISIS).
But, no, that does not mean you should paint all people you disagree with using a broad brush. There are people who honestly believe that GHG driven warming presents a serious problem, and one which should be dealt with. The fact that I think they are mistaken, or that you think they are mistaken, does not mean that they should be described as similar to Nazis (as you clearly do in your recent post) or similar to a host of other despicable historical figures.
.
References to Nazi’s are inappropriate. References to Pot Pol are inappropriate. References to Stalin are inappropriate. Stick to the science. Don’t exaggerate. Don’t hyperventilate. Don’t insult. GHG’s obviously warm the Earth’s surface. The only important question for public policy, and the question you should be focused on in your posts, is how much they will warm.

BFL
Reply to  Seve Fitzpatrick
November 29, 2014 7:14 pm

You obviously haven’t been paying attention…………..

Reply to  Seve Fitzpatrick
November 29, 2014 7:14 pm

Yes, there are some people who want to use warming driven by GHG’s to advance specific leftists and green political objectives.
Don’t forget right wing interests. Thatcher was a conservative and crony capitalists have increased their wealth immensely on the backs of “green” initiatives.
But, no, that does not mean you should paint all people you disagree with using a broad brush.
He didn’t.
The fact that I think they are mistaken, or that you think they are mistaken, does not mean that they should be described as similar to Nazis (as you clearly do in your recent post)
I read that post, hand he did no such thing. But this thread is about this post in which he didn’t even mention that topic, so why are you complaining when he is already steering clear of the very thing you demand he steer clear of?
References to Nazi’s are inappropriate. References to Pot Pol are inappropriate. References to Stalin are inappropriate.
Not one of which are mentioned in this post. You smear Dr Ball with things he never said. Perhaps I missed it? Could you quote the exact words where he said this?
Stick to the science.
If you believe that the science and the politics are not inextricably linked, then you are either very new to the debate, or just naive.
The only important question for public policy, and the question you should be focused on in your posts, is how much they will warm.
Who are you to say what anyone should write about? I have contributed both science based and politics based articles to this and other sites. Are you going to tell me which topics I cam write about and which not as well?
I don’t know if you are a well meaning new comer, or a false flag operation, but you do Dr Ball a considerable disservice with your remarks. Dr Ball has written extensively about the science, and I for one have learned a great deal from him. Unlike most of us however, Dr. Ball has lived the politics, been a victim of the politics, has suffered personally because of the politics, and all because he stood up for the science. He has more right than most to speak out on both.

LKMiller (aka treegyn1)
Reply to  Seve Fitzpatrick
November 29, 2014 7:15 pm

Seve – you clearly COULD NOT have read any of the now nearly 1000 responses to the simplistic (and wrong) rebuttal by warmunistas Edwards and Betts. I refuse to yet again point out where this rebuttal is completely wrong – so get off your lazy butt and check it out for yourself.
You owe Tim Ball an apology.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  Seve Fitzpatrick
November 30, 2014 9:11 am

References to [Nationalsozialismus] are inappropriate. References to Pot Pol are inappropriate. References to Stalin are inappropriate. Stick to the science. Don’t exaggerate. Don’t hyperventilate. Don’t insult.

When we chose an analog or example or illustration to help readers understand the topic we are writing about, we don’t want the analogy etc to ‘take over’. When that happens, the analogy or rhetoric has ‘hijacked’ the article.
In TV-entertainment, it is fairly common for a minor character to be embraced by the audience, and to ‘steal the show’. This can irritate the lead-actors, and sometimes alters the nature of the program … but the business still ‘works’.
When writing essays, analogies and rhetorical devices should be chosen to be ‘neutral’. If the readership become embroiled in discussion of our analogy, the topic of our piece was Shanghaied. This is avoidable, because we can usually recognize that a given analogy will be ‘disruptive’.
But there isn’t much more to it, in terms of Dr. Ball’s IPCC-motives post. He sabotaged himself a little … but nothing he can’t pick himself up & move on from.

November 29, 2014 6:53 pm

Show the data, show the evidence, show only things that can be reproduced, show only truth that all can understand, do not hide lies in long new data dumps of much more detailed fraud.
Work outside in the sun, work for say $25.00 per hour, work 10 hour days, with two weeks vacation, never go to conferences by air to a resort island, if you get caught in more than three lies you must resign your PHD for cause.
Things are known now, you cover is blown, hang your heads low, go and sin no more.

November 29, 2014 7:06 pm

Mike Mann is a new “medicine man” very much like the Sioux medicine man who had the Sioux believing the ghost dance would make them “not hurt by the white mans bullets”. Just a larger scale scam with a much longer and odd dance of numbers..

Zeke
November 29, 2014 7:11 pm

I know we tried to stay out of that war. But the Greatest Generation did defeat Germany’s European objectives, at great cost to themselves.
The spoiled rotten cannabis generation coming after them have no right to tell any one that we don’t discuss pre-war Germany. We can discuss it all we want, including but not limited to:
National gun registry
national gun seizure
nationalized education
Sunday compulsory state education
nationalized health care
eugenics/population control
excessive bureaucracies and system of licensing for business
And references to Stalin are appropriate, as well as Mao, because of the agricultural policies supported by top-down state science, alive and well amongst the sustainability movement. For example, five year plans have been introduced into Europe and the US attacking conventional agriculture and promoting organic-only practices.
Go fish, Steven Fitzpatrick.

David A
Reply to  Zeke
November 30, 2014 6:57 am

plus 10

David L. Hagen
November 29, 2014 7:34 pm

The Press bears part of the burden of the Prophet.
The press is tasked with exposing injustice, corruption, fraud and waste in society.
Isaiah declared:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”


Should the Press fail, will others rise to the task?

Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 30, 2014 1:24 pm

You’re reading it.
Just don’t let the government screw it up in the name of neutrality.
Another communist/socialist/liberal/progressive misnomer.

MarkW
November 29, 2014 8:16 pm

Somewhere along the lines journalists decided that they were a profession rather than an advocation.
At the same time they decided that it was more important for a young “journalist” to attend the right journalism schools than it was to learn the ropes from a seasoned veteran.
As a result of their newly acquired “professionalism”, they decided that they were more important than the people they were covering and smarter than their readers.
They no longer sought to inform the public and decided that it was their job to educate the public.
At this time they started ignoring any fact that they believed the public did not need to know, and slanting the news they did cover in order to shape public opinion more to their liking.

November 29, 2014 8:47 pm

How do you know this is a great post? The FemNazi is mad – http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/up-yours-sez-anthony-watts-with-another.html
Oh yes, I used the word “Nazi” will Mosher give me a timeout now? Did the sky fall and the committee reject Anthony’s upcoming Nobel Prize?

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Poptech
November 30, 2014 10:05 am

Pop: Sou’s place is so anti-Watts I’d describe her as a stalker. As it is, it’s more a like a Sou-er there, and i don’t like mixing with effluent. That said, I was not surprised to see a few ids of warmists I have come across on other blogs.

November 29, 2014 8:47 pm

My last post went into the filter.

anna v
November 29, 2014 9:19 pm

In the beginning science and academia were the field of “wise” “educated” “smart” “curious” “inventive” ….. people from a given society, which society supported financially academia either by private funds to the whole university and to departments, or later in time , public funds and “academic freedom” was an attribute of the universities. This meant that a professor could pursue his (hers much later) research without strings other than the integrity and ethics of the society.
This changed insidiously, particularly during and after WW2, when the needs of the war pulled in a lot of scientists to produce the known results of the Bomb etc . This came because of the patriotic feelings of the scientists , they gave up willingly their academic freedom in favor of directives because the society was at war. The path was created though.
The second change came when the markets came into research. This also happened insidiously, because it started in disciplines directly connected to products, medicine and the biological sciences a good example. The bad thing for academia being mixed with market forces is that the work is planned with profit in mind. Success means more money. It does not mean “take this money, do your best with your students, and publish” but “if you want more money your product should be useful for me who financed you”. It established the money motive in academia.
End of academic freedom for researchers, because the statement is “if you want to do research you have to get a grant” . This gives control to the people giving the grant not only on the output or research, but on the future planning of the researchers now on market forces paths.
When the money was given to institutions and not persons, it was easy for a researcher to be honest with him/her self . When it goes on a personal basis with even incentives of extra pay, the thing sours. Blind eyes can be turned in the best of cases , when money is involved, and in the worst deception and greed as in all human endeavors can take root.
Now it is no longer insidious. The great majority of research is controlled by the givers of grants on a “personal” basis. At his time, in Greece in crisis, they are passing a law for the academia and research that establishes not only the need for personalized grants, but also it is imperative to get enough money from industry to be a co partner, or to show a profit !!
John 2:13 on ” And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting . And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.”
The above is my feeling at what has been happening to academia and what should be done to cleanse it, but I see little chance. Too many people get phd degrees ( the level has been lowered), too many people need jobs in academia. The writing is on the wall, to become biblical again. Academic freedom is in practice lost in the west as long as this strangle hold is on.
No wonder that in the end political agendas prevail. Money is the root of all evil.
I wonder if China, with different political/social agenda, will leave researchers free in their research, or will follow the west.

Ted Clayton
Reply to  anna v
November 30, 2014 10:02 am

End of academic freedom for researchers, because the statement is “if you want to do research you have to get a grant” . This gives control to the people giving the grant not only on the output or research, but on the future planning of the researchers now on market forces paths.

Yes, the academic-scientific institution has been bought. The government is able to form policies, and disseminate their aims & preferences through lower funding-entities. Something like the Military-Industrial Complex, a policy which also emerged from the same background.
There are some problems with this take-over. The MIC decayed in the USA, because we exported a lot of our industrial capacity. It became more important, that we hand out or distribute our industry-base, to nations & regions & cultures whom we wanted to pull into our sphere and generally ally with.
There are problems with the take-over, in academic science, too. For one, real research in various specific fields, moved to corporate labs. This has several consequences that were not wanted, and are problematic.
It is a problem, too, that people attracted to science-curricula & careers tend quite strongly have certain temperaments & characteristics, and to under-express other traits. This too creates top-level management complications, bringing into question the original take-over plan. ‘This isn’t working out like we thought it would, is it?’
Then, there is the general international competition. We have been successful in ‘bootstrapping’ formerly low-function regions of the globe, and as a result many countries that used to be ‘nothing’, are steadily becoming meaningful contenders. Now, the Military-Industrial Complex and its sibling take-over of science looks ‘lazy’; too top-down, too inefficient and even crude.
We probably do not want to go back to the old science-policy, where we supported & protected academics, and allowed them to crawl up into some Ivory Tower and maybe do something meaningful. But we probably are in the process of shifting away from the ‘bought’ science policy that is by now quite dated & archaic.
The Internet may play a role; introduce surprises on the academic & science playing-fields.

Stephen
November 29, 2014 9:44 pm

Rita Skeeter (Harry Potter ).

Martin A
November 29, 2014 11:16 pm

You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there’s
no occasion to.

Humbert Wolfe

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Martin A
November 30, 2014 6:52 am

Great minds, etc, Martin. I was about to include Wolfe’s quote when I saw you’d beaten me to it. Well worth saying.

Greg Cavanagh
November 29, 2014 11:55 pm

Episode V – Tim Ball Strikes Back.

pat
November 30, 2014 12:30 am

29 Nov: UK Telegraph: Royal Society epitomises ‘noble cause’ corruption
Warmists say they hope ‘evidence of trends in extreme weather’ will help to ‘galvanise’ worldwide ‘action’. What evidence, asks Christopher Booker
Introducing the Society’s new report, Resilience to Extreme Weather, part-funded by the warmist billionaire Jeremy Grantham and assembled by like-minded academics and green lobby groups, its president, the geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, hopes that its “evidence of trends in extreme weather” will help to “galvanise” worldwide “action”.
The only problem is that its 128 pages produce virtually no evidence to support the belief that “extreme weather events” are becoming more frequent and intense – for the reason that virtually no such evidence exists, as even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems to accept…
Fortunately, thanks to China, India and others, the chances of agreement on the global treaty they are all lobbying for are non-existent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11262103/Royal-Society-epitomises-noble-cause-corruption.html
China is holding firm:
26 Nov: SouthChinaMorningPost: AFP: Wealthy nations must lead emissions fight, senior Chinese climate negotiator says
Rich countries should do more to reduce emissions than developing ones, senior Chinese negotiator says ahead of key talks in Lima
The meeting, to be held in the Peruvian capital Lima from Monday to December 12, is intended to pave the way for a global deal on cutting earth-warming carbon emissions to be agreed next year in Paris as a replacement for the Kyoto treaty…
“Developed countries … should continue to take the lead in cutting emissions by large margins and at the same time provide developing countries with support for financing, technology and capability building,” said Su Wei , Beijing’s senior climate negotiator and a senior official of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).
China hoped the Lima conference would uphold the principles of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in tackling climate change, he told a briefing…
Developed countries were wealthier and had greater capabilities, while economic growth and poverty alleviation remained “the most urgent priorities” of developing states, said Su, whose organisation is China’s top economic planning agency.
“The agreement to be reached in 2015 must face the facts squarely and its relevant institutions and arrangements must reflect the common and differentiated responsibilities of developed and developing countries,” he said…
Xie Zhenhua , China’s top negotiator at international climate talks and the vice-chairman of the NDRC, said the approximate date of “around 2030” for China to reach emissions peak made the target “more scientific and objective”, because the country might face great uncertainty in terms of development in the next 16 years.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1648825/wealthy-nations-must-lead-emissions-fight-senior-climate-negotiator-says

David Cage
November 30, 2014 1:08 am

The trouble is the case for AGW can be readily made with words cleverly manipulated but the case against can realistically only be made with numbers. The truth therefore has no chance whatever with either the general public or the political classes.
Most of the UK press and the BBC has a policy of banning any one who makes even a reasonably logical case against AGW but leaves a few crackpots to claim it is impartial while actually promoting it even more by the deception. The biggest offenders are the Guardian and the Independent.

jim hogg
November 30, 2014 1:11 am

“It appears he was in the dilemma because he had not functioned as a journalist, but as a messenger for the political message about global warming, that he and his newspaper favored”
Monbiot believes most of the AGW scientists and most of the science. That doesn’t make him evil or a liar. It may make him gullible, or it may not, and maybe the long run will prove him right – or wrong. . . . Trust can be a major problem if you’re in pursuit of the truth, but it’s a very common human quality that many commenters on here display in support of the scientists who uphold their position. .
David Ramsay Steele – thanks for that piece on the power of belief, and our inclination to believe and hold fast to our beliefs no matter what. Your understanding/explanation is very close to mine. I see it at work on every page of comments on this and every other site and it’s discouraging that so few have recognised it at work in themselves and acted to minimise it. . As to scepticism, the quality that would minimise it, I see it at work here too – after a fashion – but only in relation to the enemy’s point of view, rarely in respect of the disputant’s own. Real scepticism is an incredibly rare species of outlook/disposition.
For voicing your very rational point of view you were immediately insulted. Perhaps you said something worthwhile, something disturbing . . Something that might rock all sides in this cats in a bag war . . Keep believing!

Reply to  jim hogg
November 30, 2014 12:42 pm

Monbiot asked why Hurricane Sandy didn’t persuade us sceptics of the reality of newsworthy AGW.
But the IPCC AR5 reports that there is no trend in hurricanes over the 20thC when warming happened.
And the IPCC AR5 reports low confidence in predicting future trends in North American hurricanes.
Monbiot claimed something meant something (Hurricane Sandy meant cAGW) but mainstream science says no. He didn’t retract or correct when it was pointed out.
Liar.
Although it must be conceded that he didn’t delete the comments that exposed him, so maybe he considers that retraction enough (wrongly)

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
November 30, 2014 1:33 am

“Arctic ice-free – especially in Summer”! Oh dear.
http://www.azocleantech.com/news.aspx?newsID=21099

pat
November 30, 2014 2:29 am

***always so-called self-proclaimed, or MSM-proclaimed CAGW “experts” to keep the dream alive, even when faced with gigaton figures that totally destroy any possibility of that dream being realised. talk about throwing facts and figures out the window!
28 Nov: NBC: John Roach: We’re Kidding Ourselves on 2-Degree Global Warming Limit: Experts
A temperature rise that could cause irreversible and potentially catastrophic damage to human civilization is practically inevitable, according to rising chatter among experts in the l
ead up to a year of key negotiations on a new climate change global accord…
Given the world’s historic emissions combined with a continued reliance on fossil fuels to power humanity for the foreseeable future, limiting the increase to 2 degrees Celsius is all but impossible, according to David Victor, a professor of international relations and an expert on climate change policy at the University of California, San Diego.
“There is no scenario by which any accord that’s realistic on this planet is going to get us to 2 degrees because the trajectory on emissions right now is way above 2 degrees,” he told NBC News…
To stay below 2 degrees C of warming, the world can emit no more than 1,000 gigatons of additional carbon by 2100, according a new report from the United Nations Environment Program. ***To avoid exceeding that budget, global emissions should be no more than 44 gigatons of carbon a year by 2020, with an aim of even lower emissions after that point. The world currently emits 54 gigatons a year and emissions are growing. On the current path, emissions will reach 87 gigatons annually by the middle of this century…
“There is a huge gap in terms of the pathway that we need to be on for the 2-degree target,” Kelly Levin, a climate policy expert at the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based think tank, told NBC News.
***”But it is still possible if we adopt aggressive measures that rapidly reduce emissions. We haven’t closed that window yet.”…
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/were-kidding-ourselves-2-degree-global-warming-limit-experts-n257006

Rastech
November 30, 2014 3:38 am

“It is no surprise that the growth of these web sites was coincident with the decline of the mainstream media. ”
Actually the collapse of the media started in earnest a few years before the internet really took off. In a 10 month period somewhere around 1994/1995, American television lost 57% of its viewers. The print media was already losing a large number of its readers too.
I was watching this with interest over here in the UK, and the collapse in our TV viewers and newspaper readers closely tracked what was happening elsewhere.
Today, just about all newspapers are barely hanging in there, and TV is in such a state, that what are considered wildly popular and successful TV shows, have viewers figures that would have had them instantly binned 30 – 40 years ago. Newspapers that used to be full of adverts due to their readership numbers, don’t have many advertisers prepared to waste money on them any more.
In fact it is rather amusing to see people moan about “everybody’s watching Dancing with the Stars” or whatever, then if you look at the actual viewers figures for various shows, they tell a very different story.

Newsel
November 30, 2014 3:54 am

When in doubt, follow the $$’s..
“IPCC Official Climate Policy Is Redistributing the World’s Wealth”
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
UN IPCC INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL FLOWS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
691. The Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) was adopted by the GEF Council in September 2005. The RAF is designed to increase the predictability and transparency in the way the GEF allocates resources.
http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/application/pdf/background_paper.pdf