AP’s Seth Borenstein: ‘A Propagandist Masquerading as a Journalist’

Opinion by DR. TIM BALL

Seth Borenstein has a journalism degree but claims to be a science reporter. He might have claim to the journalism label except that everything he writes is biased, misleading, distorted, and wrong because he only presents one side of each story. It is no surprise that he is exploiting the latest claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His article demonstrates that he is a master of propaganda and fake news.

Many have identified his activities, biases, and transgressions, but a good summary appears in “Left Exposed.” They list many examples, including this about an article in the Associated Press

“In June 2006, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) issued a press release revealing a series of factual inaccuracies in Borenstein’s article, “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy.” The release says the cited inaccuracies raise “serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.” EPW challenged the article for suspected fabrications and non-existent sources. The release goes on to say:

“AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.

“In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review An Inconvenient Truth. AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.”

Borenstein ultimately refused to release the names.”

This July 23, 2009 email, release via “Climategate”, was from Borenstein working at AP. 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?”

Climate Depot, a reliable source of information. JGR is the Journal of Geophysical Research. The article and entire story referred to are discussed in “Censorship at AGU: Scientists Denied the Right of Reply.”Borenstein’s bias and lack of even minimal objectivity required of journalism are evident, but more so when you consider the entire IPCC deception. The shocking part is the creators and participants of the IPCC knew what they were doing. It was a deliberate scientific deception from the start, but don’t take my word for it, they said it, and their failed results confirm it. Here is what Borenstein deliberately fails to tell people.

The IPCC deliberately created an illusion of certainty about their science, and therefore their forecasts. They knew from the start that the science was inadequate and wrong because they told us. They structured the entire process to carry out the deception. They let people think they study all causes of climate change when they only look at human-caused change. That is impossible to do unless you know and understand total climate change and the mechanisms, and we don’t. It allowed them to ignore all non-human causes of change.

The IPCC produces four reports, but only two are consequential. The first by Working Group I is titled, The Physical Science Basis. Its results underpin the second and third Reports, so they don’t count. The fourth is the Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. It is written last but released first by design, because as IPCC Reviewer David Wojick explained.

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case.

In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

In this latest fiasco, the IPCC produced a Special Report to produce the SPM, to make sure nobody, like Borenstein, would miss the hype. Undoubtedly, they did this because the polls show the public is turning away from the hysteria, ironically, partly because of Borenstein’s misinformation.

The Science Report is in direct contrast to the SPM. It lists all the problems, lack of data, incomplete knowledge of mechanisms, and severe limitations of the science. In 2012, I created a limited list of the problems. The IPCC produces the Summary first knowing it will fool the media and the public. However, even if someone reads the Science Report, they are unlikely to understand it, and if they do they are easily marginalized as a skeptic, denier, or worse, paid by an oil company.

Despite this list, I only need one quotation from Section 14.2.2., of the Scientific Section of Third IPCC Report to prove that they cannot forecast the future.

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (My emphasis).

Mr. Borenstein interviewing a climate protester.

Add just one fact that explains the deception and why their computer forecasts fail. Their computer models are programmed so that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. All the evidence from any record shows exactly the opposite, temperature increases before CO2.

The IPCC climate forecasts were wrong from the earliest Report in 1990. It was so wrong that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three ‘projections;’ low, medium, and high. Since then even their ‘low’ scenario projections (forecasts) were wrong.

Every IPCC forecast is wrong, and if your forecast is wrong, the science is wrong. This guarantees the 12-year forecast is wrong in the latest Report. The IPCC knows this, but don’t care because it is about politics, not science. There is no corroborating evidence; a familiar refrain Washington these days. However, here it is worse because the evidence contradicts the claim.

Few scientists, probably about 3%, read any of the Reports. This 97% assume other scientists wouldn’t manipulate science for a political agenda. One who read them German physicist and meteorologist Klaus Eckart Puls (English translation version) reported,

“Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

The latest ‘threat’ is a 1.5 to 2°C increase, but global temperatures were higher than today by at least that much for most of the last 10,000 years during the Holocene Optimum. One study showed it was 6°C warmer 9000 years ago. The polar bears and the world survived. However, don’t expect Borenstein even to consider the facts or provide an explanation. If he did, it would be journalism not propaganda.

Advertisements

111 thoughts on “AP’s Seth Borenstein: ‘A Propagandist Masquerading as a Journalist’

  1. Seth is a pathological liar.

    I had several “run ins” with him after the Paris floods, he lies, then lies about lying. He knows you know he is lying and it doesn’t phase him whatsoever

      • It is an irony that Tim Ball is criticising another mans writing when he was the man who survived being sued because his writing was so poor. A reminder of what the judge had to say…
        “The judge noted that Ball’s words “lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory” and concluded that the “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views…”.”

          • The following describes the extreme incompetence and corruption of Canadian Federal Courts.

            This note is from an eminent Canadian legal scholar – on the Extreme Bias and Incompetence of Canada’s Supreme Court:

            “The rot starts at the top! [Canadian Supreme Court] Justice Abella once opined that women are victims in 90-95% of domestic violence incidents. That is the level of ignorance and bias you are up against when you go to court on something like this. This is the court that thinks that it is too much of a hardship to put a woman through a second trial after she hired an undercover cop to put a contract on her husband’s life… R. v. Ryan [2013 SCC 3]. ”

            Notes on Canadian Supreme Court Case R. vs Ryan (2013 SCC 3):

            The Supreme Court ruled that it was too much of a hardship to put Mrs. Ryan through a second trial after she hired an undercover RCMP officer to murder her husband. The court ruled that she had no choice but to kill, due to “duress” because she falsely claimed that she was abused. The court also falsely criticized the RCMP for not protecting her. Other than Mrs. Ryan’s false testimony, which was accepted as true without any credible evidence by judges at all three levels of court, no evidence was provided that her husband was violent.

            A subsequent major public investigation exonerated the RCMP and showed that Mr. Ryan was not violent. Mrs. Ryan was the violent partner.

            Justice Beverly McLachlan, who was Chief Justice for the R. vs. Ryan debacle, has since retired from the SCC and is practising international law.

            On the Family Law Business in Canada

            Family law in Canada is a corrupt business, where the primary objective is to extract the most money from parties, even when that entails disinformation, deceit, delay, child abduction and child abuse. If the police, lawyers and judiciary upheld their rules of conduct, they would have cleaned up their professions and ended these scams long ago. The self-governing oversight bodies of the Law Business whitewash their extreme misconduct.

            No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time. – James Madison (1751 – 1836), 4th President of USA.

            Those inside the Law Business profit handsomely from these deceitful scams, and those outside the Law Business are victimized, especially families and children.

            Canadian police, Crown prosecutors and Courts including the Supreme Court have knowingly enabled the abduction and severe abuse of young children in Silver Bullet extortion scams that have existed for decades. This happens every day to families and children in Canada. Few crimes are more vile.

          • Canada is cucked to ****

            Family law in the UK is a money game too, and the CPS.. they need kids in the system to keep it running, both in the US and UK, CPS is designed to destroy families, not protect kids

        • That you can’t say anything against the facts as presented in the article and instead go after the man is noted.

          • No this article is a about writers writing. My comment and quote are entirely relevant. If you can’t write well, best not criticise others.

          • “No this article is a about writers writing. My comment and quote are entirely relevant. If you can’t write well, best not criticise others.”

            Well don’t you contradict yourself?

            I’m sure I know…something along the lines of, “well I don’t claim to be a writer…,” etc., perhaps?

            Moreover, isn’t it true that the lawsuit against Ball failed because the man who accused Ball couldn’t prove his case, i.e., that Ball was deliberately defamatory in his writings? In other words, it couldn’t be proved that Ball was even attempting to do what the complainant alleged. In which case, it would seem your citing Ball’s writing ability in that instance to criticize this one just about means nothing more than you’ve built for yourself an embarrassing little logical straw man with a bit of ad hom sprinkles on top does it not?

            My goodness Simon you’re making an intellectual mess of yourself here…

          • …No this article is a about writers writing. My comment and quote are entirely relevant. If you can’t write well, best not criticise others…

            It is not about his writing ability. It is about his activism.

            We don’t need a judge to tell us about your lack of reading comprehension. It’s self-explanatory.

          • Simon, you are trying to re-frame the topic, and failing badly. You wish to reduce the arguments to a scope that you can level attacks against.

            You’re embarrassing yourself

          • As usual, Simon can’t deal with reality.
            The article is not about the quality of the writing but the fact that Seth is once again promoting lies.

          • sycomputing,

            “In other words, it couldn’t be proved that Ball was even attempting to do what the complainant alleged.”

            It seems that based on the judge’s assessment of Ball’s writing that the attempt wasn’t the issue, but rather that Ball didn’t succeed in being defamatory because his writing (or his argument) wasn’t credible. Whether he attempted to do so is irrelevant if he failed, anyway.

            I’ve always thought Ball’s writing was poor. Poorly organized, without developing an argument logically. He makes assertions about the IPCC with no evidence to speak of. Even his quote from the IPCC report about predicting climate states was misinterpreted (see comment below).

            “Few scientists, probably about 3%, read any of the Reports. This 97% assume other scientists wouldn’t manipulate science for a political agenda.”

            Pure speculation. Why should anyone think Ball is credible when he makes assertions like that? Plus he’s repeating himself.

            The judge was right. To thinking people, he’s simply not credible.

        • Typical
          1) Attack the man rather than the argument. (We both know that you do this because you can’t attack the argument)
          2) Cites a political opinion and claim that it trumps science.

        • hmmm, I believe Tim criticizing the intentional misleading of the public, something Borenstein demonstrably does time and time again, has nothing to do with your reading failure.

          You angry bro?

          • Simon October 26, 2018 at 6:54 pm

            Hello Simon Has Dr Ball mislead You?
            Are you saying’ that after hearing reading both sides of an issue the public can not come to a correct understanding? Mercy.
            I think the public is quite capable of distinguishing who is telling the lies to them.
            That is why you can’t tolerate dissent. So how much are you being paid to be a “Stasi”?

            michael

          • ““hmmm, I believe Tim criticizing the intentional misleading of the public” … and Ball doesn’t?”

            So I demonstrate why you are talking rubbish, and you answer with a question.

            Obviously you are an emotionally driven cognitive lightweight that lets his emotions cause him to rush, and so make incoherent arguments and ludicrous pseudo reductionist claims.

        • Since the judge would have believed in the baloney of CAGW, the judge would have concluded that anyone criticizing it , would be illogical. Tim Ball is a scientist who believes in the null hypothesis, unlike bedwetters like you SIMON that believe in CAGW without ever questioning it.

          • Instead of dealing with those who have demonstrated that you don’t know what you are talking about, the only thing you can do is complain about a mild insult.
            Might as well just admit that even you know that you are talking nonsense.

      • Here is how modern politics works:

        In the developing world, over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but they are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela… and North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union countries and many more…

        The left gains political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants.

        It is really no different in the developed world. Get elected by lazy greedy imbeciles, destroy the economy with fake green energy and other crazy policies, and live like kings on top of a ruined economy, looking down on all the peasants.

    • The problem is Borenstein is writing exactly what his editors, driven by their pay masters, want. Borenstein’s food chain wants climate porn. They want stories people will read and read again and cross cite. It pays the bills. And the stories are not intended to be science journalism, but science porn. Like a porn story or a scary horror story that titillates readers and scares them There is a segment of the population hungry to wallow in climate porn, just as there are many people who like the scare movies (like Halloween, or Friday 13th stuff, or vampire movies) or watch internet porn.

      And that eco-system of climate porn promotion is self-reinforcing. If a science journalism hire is a writer will real science integrity and ethics, then he or she will write stories that the paymasters don’t want. They will bore. Climate change is predominately driven by natural forcings and natural ocean and (maybe) solar cycles. Yawn. The writer gets let go. A new hire comes along, and the cycle repeats until they find the long-term guy like Seth Borenstein willing to write ethics-free climate porn.

      So the problem of climate science journalism-free zones like the AP is a top-down problem. Which clearly identifies the problem of climate porn in main stream media as a politcal-ideological- driven phenomenon.

      • ‘The problem is Borenstein is writing exactly what his editors, driven by their pay masters, want.’

        EXACTLY!

      • ” a politcal-ideological- driven phenomenon”
        Another explanation easily derived from what you’ve written is that it is simply entertainment market driven, with no more care about what you conclude than it is about accurate science reporting.

      • Seth is a self professed champion of Gaia, didn’t you know. He’s “Mr 10%”. 10% of every weather event was caused by CO2.

        If you ever need to throw up something you shouldn’t have swallowed, read his twitter, you’ll be filling buckets in no time. He lies, intentionally. The spin in his reporting is tragic. I do not doubt a large amount of what he produces is essentially fabricated.

        Remember this is AP, a news agency that admitted they more or less let the CIA write stories for them

    • “He knows you know he is lying and it doesn’t phase him whatsoever”

      That sounds like Obama.

      That could also apply to just about every other partisan Democrat.

      Obama outdid himself in the Hypocrisy Department with the speech he gave yesterday criticizing Trump. Everything Obama falsely accused Trump of doing, Obama did himself. Obama is just a bald-faced liar. And he’s good at it, too. Obam is a better liar than Bill Clinton, and that’s saying something.

      • Tell me what Obama lied about in his speech? As he said, you can check everything I am saying. Tel me where this is wrong?
        Trump said that he would pass a tax cut before the November election. Obama then told the crowds in high school gymnasiums that “Congress isn’t even in session before the election! He just makes it up!”

        He’s right, Trump just makes stuff up daily to get what he wants, and they aren’t even convincing lies. And his fool supporters don’t even check to see if the BS he says is true or not. They don’t care.

          • So no discussion about the point I made about the liar in chief, just a personal insult. Hurrah Marks on form. At least you have moved on from calling me a troll.

          • The difference is Bernie (Unlike Donald) doesn’t go round giving speeches encouraging the his followers, including the mentally disturbed (and yes they are on both sides) to hurt people. These nutters just need a spark to ignite their hate and Trump gives them a torch.

          • Does Sanders praise someone that pleads guilty to assault because the victim is a member of the press?

          • Simon,

            It looks to me as if it’s the Left which is encouraging violent “resistance”. Rep. Waters has urged Democrats to “be more forceful, more confrontational and more prepared to push back”. Former Sec. Clinton, ex-AG Holder and other leading lights on the Left have likewise advocated violent confrontation.

            Coeur,

            Trump shouldn’t have appeared to condone body slamming a reporter. At some other time, it might have been seen as the joke it was intended to be, but in the current explosive environment and around the time of Khashoggi’s murder, it was tone deaf at best.

          • Coeur,

            Not just with her words, but with her money.

            Failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has sent $800,000 from her campaign funds to her new political action group, Federal Election Commission filings show.

            Clinton announced her intent to be “part of the resistance” in May 2017 with the formation of Onward Together, a political action group that will fund a number of established “resistance” groups practicing direct action and protests.

            Her largess included grants to violent Antifa groups, such as those currently making the streets of Portland, OR resemble Weimar Berlin.

            IMO it’s time for everyone to tone down the rhetoric and start behaving civilly, rather than driving into protesters, trying to close streets, hounding administration officials in restaurants, shooting members of Congress and breaking their ribs.

          • Financially supporting protest is not advocating violence.
            .
            .
            Please provide me with an example where Clinton advocated violence.

          • Paying for it isn’t advocating it?

            She openly advocates incivility.

            “Sitting down in an interview with CNN, Clinton, mincing no words, told the host that being civil with Republicans is out of the realm of reality and that civility can only continue once Democrats have power over the House and Senate.

            “You cannot be civil with a party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” said Clinton. “That’s why I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again, but until then the only thing the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

          • Paying to support protests is not advocating violence.
            ..
            Not being “civil” is not advocating violence.
            ..
            Please provide me with an example of Clinton advocating violence.

            For example, did she ever say, “Punch ’em in the nose?” or did she every say, “Slap them in the face?”

          • I see you like to latch onto a nitpick then defend it indefinitely with arguments from invincible ignorance.

          • “If TDS rots the brain, why do Trump supporters send bombs in the mail?”

            Only one Trump supporter sent out bombs, and he is obviously a psychopath with many issues and the constant violent rhetoric and lies against Trump and the Deplorables coming from the radical Left and the Leftwing News Media drove the man over the edge.

            The Left wants to pretend that Trump’s rhetoric is violent, but the real violent rhetoric and violent actions comes from the radical Left.

            Someone ought to make a list of all the violent rhetoric and violent actions that have taken place on both the Left and the Right since Trump was elected. There is no doubt that the list of violent Leftwing incidents completely dwarfs any violence from the Right. About 100 to 1 would be my guess.

            Yeah, the Radical Left better watch out with their violent rhetoric. They do it to gin up emotions in their leftwing followers and they end up agitating a lot of psychopaths both on the Left and the Right and some of those psychopaths get so agitated that they act out in violent ways.

            The shooter at the Synagogue was no doubt a copy-cat psychopath who was triggered by the recent violent events and rhetoric. He’s a Trump-hater, btw, but that doesn’t stop the Left from trying to blame the murders on Trump.

            And btw, criticizing the Leftwing Media is not violent rhetoric. And calling dishonest news coverage Fake News is not an attack on Free Press, it is an attack on liars who use the press to spread their lies.

            The Left should stop agitating the psychopaths. It’s estimated that any group of people you look at will have about 10 percent who are psychopaths of one form or another.

            The difference between how violance is handled on the Left and the Right is the Left promotes and celebrates political violence, whereas the Right vehemently condemns violence, except in self defense..

        • “Tell me what Obama lied about in his speech?”

          Well, if I had a transcript of Obama’s speech, I would debunk every lie.

          I did a search but all I found was a Sept. 7, 2018 speech. He lied in that one, too, but I wanted to address the speech he gave a couple of days ago but I haven’t found it yet.

          Obama accuses Trump of doing everything that he and the Democrats do. I think they call it projection. Although I don’t think that applies to Obama, he’s just lying. He knows better. Someone who projects is a little delusional and believes what he is saying, whereas Obama doesn’t believe what he is saying, he’s just lying for personal and political gain.

          • “Listen to Obama’s speech then tell us where he has lied.”

            You really know how to torture a guy, don’t you Simon. Listening to Obama is a chore at best. I’ll try to suffer through it. 🙂

          • Simon: “Listen to Obama’s speech then tell us where he has lied. Simple request.”

            Sorry I took so long to reply, Simon. It took me two days to make myself listen to this guy. I thought I was going to have to wade through his whole speech to find the point I wanted to address, but your clip started right off with it! So I’m grateful I only had to listen to a few seconds of his speech to make my point. I don’t intend to transcribe the whole video, but if you would like a detailed rebuttal of Obama’s speech, send me a transcript.

            In the speech, Obama said:

            Obama: “What we have not seen before, in our recent public life at least, is politicians just blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly, lying! Making stuff up!

            I thought this was particularly ironic seeing as how Obama himself has blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly lied and made stuff up. Obama is describing himself.

            Get me a transcript and I will go into detail on Obama’s lies, if a proper forum can be found. I used to do a lot of this on Usenet’s alt.politics. I like putting the proper perspective on Leftwing lies.

            If the Republicans retain both Houses of Congress, then prosecutors may go into detail about Obama and his administration’s lies and sedition. Here’s hoping!

        • Tom Abbott,

          “The difference between how violance is handled on the Left and the Right is the Left promotes and celebrates political violence, whereas the Right vehemently condemns violence, except in self defense”

          You obviously haven’t spent much time reading Breitbart comments. It’s absolutely appalling how many people there talk about killing others, particularly liberals and Muslims.

          Nor do the facts on deadly violence support your claims.

          This is from last year, and it covers 25 years, but it’s from the Cato Institute and so can hardly be seen as left-biased.
          https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly
          “Regardless of the recent upswing in deaths from Left Wing terrorism since 2016, Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have killed about 10 times as many people since 1992.”

          Or this, also from a year ago:
          https://www.lawfareblog.com/should-we-use-t-word-right-wing-violence
          ” Left-wing groups such as “Antifa” seem to brawl rather than kill: Their violence consists mainly of street fighting against right-wing demonstrators, including largely peaceful ones (the justification being that Antifa has deemed them fascists). The last major cycle of left-wing violence was in the 1970s, when groups such as the Weather Underground tried to bomb America into a revolution…

          “Since 9/11, right-wing violence has killed 68 people compared to 95 by jihadists; the jihadist figure would be more than halved (and lower than right-wing murders) if the 2016 shooting of 49 people at a gay night club in Orlando were excluded. The year 2016 was the bloodiest year for domestic extremists since 1995, when the right-wing radical Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in his bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. Since the election of Donald Trump, right-wing violence has soared. In the 34 days following the vote, the Southern Poverty Law Center documented 1,094 bias-related incidents, and 37 percent of incidents involved Trump or his campaign slogans….

          “But left- and especially right-wing violence is driving us apart. On the left, the killing is minimal, but images of Antifa and other violence are used to bolster the perception that Trump’s opponents are extreme and committed to stopping legitimate speech and protest. The impact is far greater on the right because of the scope and scale of the violence. ”

          The right always talks about Antifa, but rarely about the Proud Boys.

          “In a speech explaining Proud Boys, McInnes described a clash with antifa outside a speech he gave at NYU last year: ‘My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.’ He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: ‘It was really, really fun.’ According to McInnes, ‘Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.’”

          https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/17/gavin-mcinnes-right-wing-violence-221578

          • “You obviously haven’t spent much time reading Breitbart comments. It’s absolutely appalling how many people there talk about killing others, particularly liberals and Muslims.”

            Well, actually, I do not read the comments at Breitbart, although I do usually skim the headlines.

            I don’t consider anyone who advocates violence to be a member of the mainstream Republican party. They can certainly call themselves a Republican, but violence is something only radicals do, and that is not what the Republican Party is made of.

            You didn’t read about any conservative on WUWT praising the mad bomber, and you won’t because conservatives and Republicans do not condone violence. Conservatives don’t need violence, they have ideas.

            The Left creates a false reality when they assert that the Right is the violence entity. It’s a disinformation campaign. The Radical Left are the violent ones and they have the Leftwing News Media in their corner spewing all these lies about Repubicans.

            This is standard operating prodecure for the Left although it has been racheted up about tenfold since Trump was elected. A relentless stream of lies about the Right is all you get out of the Left. That’s the only way they can defeat the Right because they have no viable ideas. All they have is fear and hate and violence and lies.

            I didn’t bother going through your examples of rightwing violence since I know the only examples you could offer are of extremimts which no decent conservative or Republican would support. Republicans don’t support Nazis or any other such group. The Nazis and the Brownshirts and the Facists are all on the Left and always have been. There are some rightwing groups that are prone to violence when they thing the government is usurping their rights, but mainstream Republicans don’t support them or encourage them, and condemn any violence that may occur.

            If you have any examples of mainstream Republicans committing violence, let me know. I’ll be the first to denounce them and their actions.

            An aside: The Radical Left is so dishonest. I listened to ABC News tonight and they led off with a story about Trump calling the Media the enemy of the people. Well, this is just a blatant lie. What Trump said was the FAKE NEWS was the enemy of the people, but ABC News left that out and substituted “Media” for Fake News, thus changing the entire meaning of what Trump said..

            The Fake News and the Media are two different things and it is obvious that when Trump says Fake News he is referring to the lies and disinformation that many reporters on the Left are putting out in public every day, and Trump calls them on it. Trump also says there are some good reporters out there, too, and he doesn’t call Fox News Fake News. But when Trump’s news coverage is 92 percent negative, it tells you that most of the reporters and organizations are lying in an effort to portray Trump in the worst light possible and the truth is not a factor. At least, that’s what it tells me.

            The Left want to imply that Trump is threatening Free Press but nothig could be further from the truth. Trump is just criticizing the lies and distortions coming from the dedicated Lertists in the news media. If they went away or had an enlightenment, Trump would stop criticizing them. It’s not the Media he dislikes, it’s the liars in the Media he dislikes. And there are plenty of them.

          • Tom Abbott,

            In your former post you said,

            “The difference between how violance is handled on the Left and the Right is the Left promotes and celebrates political violence, whereas the Right vehemently condemns violence, except in self defense”

            This is not the same as saying “radical left.” You made no differentiation between the left in general and the extreme left, but now emphasize the difference between Republicans and the extreme right.

            I agree that most Republicans do not encourage violence. I likewise believe that most Democrats do not.

            “You didn’t read about any conservative on WUWT praising the mad bomber” No, but I did read over a hundred comments on BB who said with certainty that it was a hoax by the left. This is a measure of the disconnect between reality and desire. Many on the right want to deny that there is a sizable violent right-wing extremist population, and that it has been growing in recent years. They don’t want to connect this with Trump’s rhetoric. While it’s true that it started before he was elected as a backlash against a black liberal president, the fact is that Trump has often made ugly comments about minorities and has sometimes been slow to condemn right-wing violent extremism. Extremists themselves have said that they believe Trump is on their side.

            “The Left creates a false reality when they assert that the Right is the violence entity.”
            Generalizations are wrong; the right are not always violent – but that’s not what the left believe, anyway.

            “The Radical Left are the violent ones”
            Wrong. There is thuggery on both sides. After the 1970s, fatal attacks have usually come from the extreme right.

            “…they have the Leftwing News Media in their corner spewing all these lies about Repubicans.”

            The media are all biased. But if you believe that the left wing media ONLY spreads lies, you won’t ever be able to differentiate the truth from the lies – even the truth will seem like lies to you, and you will be poorly informed. I suspect this is one reason conservatives seem so unconcerned about the evidence for Trump’s corruption and lack of integrity. They simply don’t accept it, thinking it’s left-wing lies. I prefer to believe that than the alternative: that conservatives don’t care that their president is unethical and potentially criminal.

            Have you ever read about the Trump Foundation? The media do not simply contrive evidence. They do issue corrections. Bias is not the same as lies and errors. If the media were as full of lies as Trump makes out, why doesn’t he sue them for libel?

            “That’s the only way they can defeat the Right because they have no viable ideas.” That’s just offensive. It’s ridiculous to think the Right has a monopoly on intellect or reason.

            “All they have is fear and hate and violence and lies.” This applies to both sides.

            “The Nazis and the Brownshirts and the Facists are all on the Left and always have been.” This is BS. Yes, Hitler called his regime socialist, but not in the usual sense of Marxism, which he hated and thought a Jewish concept. When he came into power he >privatized< industry, including social and labor services. He also introduced import tariffs, and moved away from trade and toward a self-sufficient economy (sound familiar?). While there may have been partnerships (agreements) between industry and state, this is simply not what we today mean by "socialism," and it certainly wasn't in any way leftist.

            The left is associated with redistribution of wealth and fighting for minorities; the right with anti-immigration, anti-government, nationalism, and an economically stratified society. White supremacy is a right-wing phenomenon, even though not all those on the right subscribe to it. (How many modern-day white supremacists are liberals?) The tired old argument that the KKK were Democrats does not recognize the turbulence in the party's past – "Democrat" did not always mean leftist.

            "An aside: The Radical Left is so dishonest. I listened to ABC News tonight and they led off with a story about Trump calling the Media the enemy of the people."

            ABC is the radical left? Are you nuts?

            The story was not dishonest, you've got it wrong. Trump did not just complain about "fake news" being the enemy of the people. He said "fake news media." That is something very different. He is characterizing (some) media as fake news, and calling them the enemy of the people. And it isn't the first time! 2/7/17: "The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!" Again and again he's done it.

            "At a June 25, 2018 rally in South Carolina, Trump singled out journalists as "fake newsers" and again called them "the enemy of the people."[26][27] Some commentators linked these comments to a mass shooting at the offices of a newspaper publisher in Annapolis, Maryland, that took place only days later, on June 28."

            8/2/17: ""FAKE NEWS media… is the enemy of the American People", and on 8/29/17 "a California man was charged with one federal count of 'making threatening communications in interstate commerce' for calling the newsroom of The Boston Globe 14 times between August 10 and 22, calling the newspaper the 'enemy of the people' and threatening to kill reporters. In his call on August 16, the man was accused of saying 'You're the enemy of the people, and we're going to kill every fucking one of you. … I'm going to shoot you in the fucking head later today, at 4 o'clock.'" (Wikipedia)

            Do you maintain there was no connection, violence/threats just days after Trump's tweets? How about the fact that the pipe bomber sent one to CNN? So what if his bomb failed to go off – the intention was terrorism.

            Someone is filling your head with lies, and you believe them. Trump is very definitely not communicating the idea that it's just "fake news" that is the enemy, but that certain media are.

            He has even admitted to a 60 Minutes journalist that he will call something fake news as a distraction from another issue.

            Reading BB headlines is about the worst you can do to try to gain a balanced view of the news. I spent a couple years frequenting BB, and often read the "stories behind the stories." BB is very misleading, intentionally so. Sometimes they outright lie. Just the other day I followed up on a headline about the Democrat candidate for the governor of Florida having led an "extremist organization" – it was BS. Progressive, yes, but extremist??? Uh-uh. BB likes to take quotes out of context and reinterpret them. It doesn't even make a show of being balanced.

            Why complain about left-wing media bias and not right-wing bias? Why should it matter which side it's on? Bias and propaganda are bad for democracy and an informed public no matter what the agenda.

            All Americans should try to be skeptical not just of what they don't want to believe, but of what it's comfortable to believe. Always be vigilant – propaganda is everywhere.

            They should try to avoid sweeping generalizations and condemnation of other groups, and instead recognize individuality and variation.

            They should try to find common ground to build on rather than focus on the differences.

            It's very hard! But I love my country and I hate seeing so much hate tearing it apart. America includes all Americans. We need tension between right and left to prevent either side from becoming too powerful, leading to totalitarianism. America has always been a land of diversity, and we need to accept and indeed celebrate it – that is part of what defines America.

            I want to be able to carry on friendly conversation with people like you, Tom, free of insidious, false generalizations and assertions about groups.

            (I sure hope you're still around to read this.)

          • “This is not the same as saying “radical left.” You made no differentiation between the left in general and the extreme left, but now emphasize the difference between Republicans and the extreme right.”

            That’s true. I do try to differentiate between the Left and the Radical Left but sometimes I leave out the “radical” and that’s a mistake. I don’t think all Leftists are violent radicals. I do think the percentage of radicals is much larger among the Left than among the Right. The Radical Right is a footnote to the Right, whereas the radical Left is becoming mainstream on the Left, certainly among the leadership.

          • “I sure hope you’re still around to read this.”

            I did read that, Kristi. 🙂

            We should probably move this conversation to more recent articles, as this article is getting pretty old, and my browser is filling up with too many tabs. See you down the road!

  2. Most people don’t rely on media for critical information. Print media is dead, radio and TV have died, but persist as background noise for older people.
    Local information comes from trusted sources, family, neighbors, direct relationships at work, etc.
    I can sit in at my town board meetings once a month and observe their performance directly.
    I’d sooner believe my barber of 20 years for information than some clown at Associated Press.

    Dr. Ball, keep up the good fight against the global warming freak show.

    • When Associated Press (which is better than most IMO) had a comments section, I frequently saw him referred to as Seth Goebbelstein, which is quite ironic if you think about it.

      • The CBC plays to an urban audience and that’s where the votes are. It’s easier to cool off in summer than to stay warm in winter.

        People should just find a shady place and wrap a cold wet towel around themselves. Also stay hydrated.

        Did the MSM advise people on what to do? Or did they just rant about global warming?

    • Like most people that call themselves journalists today, Borenstein is really an activist. There are not many real journalists left today.

  3. This quote from Dr. Ball’s article bears emphasizing and repeating:

    “Every IPCC forecast is wrong, and if your forecast is wrong, the science is wrong. This guarantees the 12-year forecast is wrong in the latest Report.”

  4. You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
    Young Seth, the science journalist.
    But seeing what the man will do
    Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
    with apologies to Humbert Wolf

  5. Dr. Ball,

    When you write about the misdirection and deception with regards to the global warming scam it always brings out the commenters in opposition to the truth. Good work! Let the frenzy begin!

  6. Seems to me that most “journalists” are really propagandists. You can ID them from 1) narrative reporting, and 2) predominantly opinion-based work

  7. Seth Boringstone is on a mission from God and knows that any lie or misrepresentation of the truth is already forgiven by Gaia. He is already in the company of the Holy Host of Alarmists.

  8. Check the CVs and back stories on most of the climate change story authors. Science credentials rare to absent and clueless about science, but write to suit their editor/publisher narratives.

  9. ” One study showed it was 6°C warmer 9000 years ago. The polar bears and the world survived. However, don’t expect Borenstein even to consider the facts or provide an explanation. ”

    It’s so sad. My kids grew up loving the Borenstein Bears, though I don’t actually recall them being polar bears…

  10. It ought to have been amazing that climate scientists apparently discovered a complete understanding and explanation of all of the natural causes of climate change at exactly the same time they discovered CO2 was the thing they now believed to be causing all recent observed changes.

    An actual journalist might have thought to ask why that previously they understood almost nothing about any of these things, and then they suddenly understood everything at once. Suspicious, no?

  11. Come now,we all owe Seth or Seethe a debt of gratitude.
    In no small way his “reporting” has served to mock and ridicule the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming meme.
    His over the top ranting,selective blindness and absurd leaps of faith have done wonders in triggering more rational persons BS detectors.
    Face it, as an act of fiction could you have created a character such as Seth and made him seem plausible?
    Once again the True Believer is stranger than fiction and near impossible to parody.

  12. The subject of Seth Borenstein pops up every so often here on WUWT, especially when he write a particularly absurd monotribe. Then some enterprising contributor here spends hours to rebut that nonsense, and like the old game “what-a-mole”, hammers Borenstein’s mold down, only to have it pop up again. After all, that’s what he’s paid to do.
    Nearly 6 years ago I took up the hammer when SB penned a page of dribble titled “Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards”, and I spent a good part of a sleepless night explaining some simple physics.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/19/whac-a-moling-seth-borenstein-at-ap-over-his-erroneous-extreme-weather-claims/
    Since and before that night, others here took up the hammer. Today is Tim Ball’s turn.
    Thanks, Tim, but don’t do this too often. There’s better things to do with your time.

  13. Say, who needs to make typos when spell mis-check does it for you, gleefully.
    It’s “whac”, not what; and “mole”, not mold.

  14. Over the last half dozen decades, I’ve seen pretty much NO unpoliticized news (AKA propaganda)… (and now that even includes the damned weather)… from any of the MSM.

    I don’t see anything exceptional about Borenstein. Just a bit stupider.

    All of these self proclaimed journalists go into journalism “to make the world a better place”…in other words… slanting every lying syllable that comes out of their mouths or pens to try to remake the world into a socialist paradise (with themselves part of the ruling elite).

    There has never ever been “just the facts” journalism…anywhere.

  15. From the article: “Few scientists, probably about 3%, read any of the Reports. This 97% assume other scientists wouldn’t manipulate science for a political agenda.”

    I think this is an important point and explains a lot.

    All these studies we see about the various dire effects that come with CAGW all assume that the climate scientists have done their job properly and the authors of related studies base their work on these assmptions.

    False assumptions as it turns out, but most scientists don’t have the time to verify every aspect of the underlying science they work with so they have to take some things on faith. And it’s not their job to debunk the CAGW hypothesis.

    So we shouldn’t assume that all those scientists who believe in CAGW are part of the scam. Most have just been duped by the biggest science fraud in history.

  16. ‘He might have claim to the journalism label except that everything he writes is biased, misleading, distorted, and wrong because he only presents one side of each story.’

    Well, yeah, HE’S A JOURNALIST!

    Dr. Ball, you seem to have a belief that journalists are special, good people. No doubt you learned that from . . . journalists. 50 years of crap from journalists, and people still think they are good, noble people.

    ‘Journalist’ should be an insult. People should have a NEGATIVE response to the word.

    • Like the chivalrous knight and the impartial judge, the investigative journalist is much more a distant ideal than a real person.

  17. A “Journalism Degree” is now just a badge for
    propagandists who pursue their desire to be one
    of those who “will change things and make
    them better”. That means to be in accord with
    socialist doctrine and to end disagreement using
    any and all methods up to and including physical
    violence.

  18. Regarding records showing temperature always increasing before CO2: This is true for about 399,900 of the past 400,000 years, when the amount of carbon in the summer of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere was essentially constant. CO2 change was a positive feedback for a temperature change started by something else, usually the Milankovitch cycles. Things are different now that we are transferring a lot of carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere.

    • Donald,

      CO2 hasn’t been constant for the past 400 K years. It’s lower during glacial intervals and higher during interglacials. The difference has been from ~180 to 340 ppm. That’s substantial variation. Now it appears to be somewhat more in the present interglacial, ie over 400 ppm, but the climatic effect is negligible at best. And we can’t really be sure whether prior interglacials didn’t reach this beneficial level.

      What we do know is that for most of Earth’s history, CO2 has been much higher than now, without dangerous runaway global warming.

  19. I know nothing about Seth Borenstein, so I’m really biting my tongue.
    It’s enough to let him know everybody’s watching.

  20. man thinks god laughs meaning:

    https://www.google.at/search?q=man+thinks+god+laughs+meaning&oq=man+thinks+god+laughs&aqs=chrome.

    OR

    the Scientific Section of Third IPCC Report prove[s] that they cannot forecast the future.

    “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”

  21. “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”

    This does not mean that the models can’t make projections. It means that they can’t state that the climate will be at a particular state at a particular time. The models are designed to establish average trends. Each emergent property of the simulations is associated with a likelihood and a degree of confidence. So, the models don’t say, “It will be an average of 17.5 C, with 343 mm rain in Caracas in 2055.”

    “The IPCC deliberately created an illusion of certainty about their science, and therefore their forecasts.”

    Only someone misreading/misinterpreting the IPCC reports could think that they created an illusion of certainty – the quote that Ball cites should be evidence of that!

    It’s ironic that Ball accuses others of propaganda when he is so eager to spread propaganda himself. The article’s title and beginning suggests it is about Seth Borenstein, but most of it is bashing the IPCC, and doing so without evidence. He’s entitled to his opinion, but that’s all it is. I could write a post saying the IPCC is great and the models are perfect and predict the future without error, and that would be equally false and bereft of interesting content.

    • Kristi:
      “This does not mean that the models can’t make projections”
      Correct.
      The models are not the science.
      It is not possible to incorporate natural variation that overlies the AGW warming trend.
      Just as it’s not possible to forecast weather with any worthwhile accuracy beyond 10days at best.
      Models are not intended for that purpose. They are a learning tool. Run some suites a few times and see how hey perform against time.
      They are ensembles, a collection of indvidual runs. That technique is used in weather forecasts for beyond 3 days or so. In order to determine the level of chaos inherent in the initial state of the atmosphere.
      I say again they are not intended to and certainly cannot (probably ever) “forecast future climate states”.
      They can however give us indications of average temperatures, and so give clues as to other climatic effects such as precipitation regionally.
      Naysayers such as Mr Ball like to make out that the models make the science.
      No, the science makes the model physics.
      NV has up until recently masked the GHE signal, especially the PDO/ENSO state, when -ve.
      That signal is now being subsumed as CO2 forcing slowly increases.
      Hansen was on the money with a basic model 30 years ago.
      120 years ago Arrhenius worked out 5 to 6C per x2 CO2.
      The IPCC still says 1.5 to 4.5C.
      (PS: I know denizens do not accept the Hansen projection as being “on the money” but recent critiques of it here were wilfully wrong …..

      https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/12/hansens-1988-scenarios-and-outcome.html
      https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2018/06/hansens-1988-predictions-30-year.html
      https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2018/07/hansens-1988-prediction-scenarios.html

  22. This story about Seth Borenstein is so true! Inevitably, whenever I see a newspaper story with “chicken little” headlines and scary predictions about climate change, I look immediately at the byline and there it is: SETH BORENSTEIN, AP. Seth isn’t even up on the latest research or trends in climate because he is a full time ACTIVIST for global warming. When Seth writes, I know it will be FAKE NEWS for sure.

Comments are closed.