By Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters
Manmade global warming alarmism took a disgraceful turn for the worse this weekend when Newsweek published a lengthy cover-story repeatedly calling skeptics “deniers” that are funded by oil companies and other industries with a vested interest in obfuscating the truth. In fact, the piece several times suggested that publishing articles skeptical of man’s role in climate change is akin to misleading Americans about the dangers of smoking.
Despicably titled “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” the article painted a picture of an evil cabal whose goal is to thwart science at the detriment of the environment and the benefit of their wallets. Worse still, the piece’s many authors painted every skeptical scientific report they referred to as being part of this cabal while including absolutely no historical temperature data to prove that today’s global temperatures are in any way abnormal.
Maybe most disingenuous, there wasn’t one word given to how much money corporations and entities with a vested interest in advancing the alarmism are spending, or who they are. See whole story here.
By Christopher J. Alleva
I have often wondered how the media are in such lock step on Global Warming. Well, I wonder no more. Recently, I came across a website for the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). This website is veritable tool box for any budding reporter assigned to the global warming beat. If you’re an editor at the Palookaville Post, all you have to do is send your cub reporters to this site and they’ll have everything they need to write an article that fits the template and action line perfectly.
In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: “Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics”, the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you’re looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity.
The mere existence of the Society of Environmental Journalists shows first hand how the media world works, providing the infrastructure to journalists engaged in the practice of global warming advocacy journalism. Read full story here.
By Jennifer Marohasy
It has become common practice in climate science for a press release reporting the findings of a new paper to precede the publication in the journal concerned. Thus, the Lockwood and Frohlich paper ‘Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature’ (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc.) was announced in the 5th July edition of the journal Nature under the headline ‘No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics.’
Note: It was met with a chorus of support from gklobal warmers in the UK and here in the US. But many others found many flaws in the work (see Icecap blog). Meanwhile Jennifer reported on a letter in the Guardain by Meteorologist Piers Coryn, one of the IPCC AR4 Authors.
Meanwhile, Piers Corbyn of Weather Action, who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, had a letter published in The Guardian: In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwood’s “refutation” of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity. So what does he do? He “finds” that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time.
The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science. Read more here.
By Fred Gielow, The Ecological Powerhouse
This story is by Fred Gielow, the author of You Don’t Say, a collection of stories that did not get reported on the evening news that shiould and who manages a web site by the same name. He researched and catalogued the headlines over the past century showing the alternating multi-decadal hype about warming and cooling. See the listing here.
US annual mean temperatures from 1895 to 2005 - NCDC USHCN Version 1
Investors Business Daily
Hysterics greet the Australian broadcast of “The Great Global Warming Swindle” as the land down under endures its coldest June since 1950. According to the greenies, global warming caused that, too. It hasn’t gotten as much media hoopla as Al Gore’s full-length cartoon on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth.” But the documentary by British filmmaker Martin Durkin has not escaped the notice of the high priests in Archbishop Gore’s Church of Climate Change.
Viewable on Google video (video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566) and soon to be available on DVD, Durkin’s film has branded him a major heretic. Last week it was broadcast for the first time by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. But rather than let it stand on its merits, ABC followed it with a rather one-sided bash session led by ABC host Tony Jones. Durkin called it an “ABC studio assault” that revealed the “intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp.”
Afterwards, writing in The Australian, Durkin understood the warm-mongers frustration: “To the utter dismay of the global-warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. “According to their own figures (from the U.N.-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirm this.”
Some serious cooling occurred last month in Australia. Aussies endured their coldest June on average since the Cold War was in its infancy in 1950. Queensland in the northeast was particularly frosty. Townsville’s June was its coldest since 1940. June 24 saw the coldest Brisbane morning — ever. But for greenies, it doesn’t matter what the weather actually is or what the data actually show. It’s all caused by global warming. As Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault explained in 2005: “Global warming can mean colder; it can mean drier; it can mean wetter; that’s what we’re dealing with.” Oh. Such hot air is exactly what we’re dealing with.
See full story here.
By Madhav Khandehar, Meteorologist
You may be interested to hear this radio interview (Ottawa radio CFRA) on the story about human fingerprint on precipitation patterns, based on the Nature paper by several high-profile modelers in Canada and the UK that was covered in local canadian newspapers. Dr Khandehar is an Environmental Consultant whose expertise is on extreme weather events. Madhav first job as a meteorologist was in India but spent 25 years with Environment Canada in Unionville , Ontario before retiring.
By Jeffrey Ball, Wall Street Journal
Travelers are running into an uncomfortable reality: Going green means sacrificing some luxuries. The tough choices ahead as resorts try to cater to eco-conscious consumers. One increasingly common approach to addressing the environmental impact of travel is the purchase of carbon offsets—credits that help fund the reduction of emissions elsewhere on the planet. For an estimate of the cost of offsetting common vacation activities, Read the full story here. Offsetters Climate Neutral Society, a nonprofit that sells carbon offsets and consults with the travel industry on energy efficiency, estimated how much CO2 these activities generated in 24 hours..
Bruce Schwoegle, a Massachusetts Meteorologist and CTO for Mysky Communications, Inc., challenged the estimates for some of the activities here and pointed out we often forget the energy needed to produce the alternative energy sources. He wrote the following to Jeffrey Ball at the WSJ.
I am a scientist, not a jet skier and WSJ print subscriber. I am also puzzled re your comprehensive report on CO2 emissions. It bothers me (I rarely write missives such as this) that I cannot comprehend the figures you promulgate. Am I missing something? For instance, 730 pounds for 3 hours on a jet ski? Gasoline is 6 pounds per gallon with carbon only being part of that weight, and I assume 5 gallons for the 3 hours = 30 pounds. Granted, combustion is uniting carbon in the gas with oxygen (.08lbs/cubic ft.) to produce CO2……but 730 total pounds? I’m not familiar with how much pure oxygen a small engine burns, but this seems waaaaay out of the ballpark.
And I note that the electric (non solar) golf cart emits far less CO2, but what about the emissions related to generating electricity to charge it? Indeed, what about CO2 utilized to produce and deliver solar cells for the cart? If no logical explanations exist, such correlations are beyond belief. I’m a skeptic re the media’s induced major global warming frenzy and suggest that such figures likely reflect an Al Gore mentality.
Inhofe Press Blog
During today’s hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):
“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.”
In a July 16, Washington Times article, Eckhart confirmed that he did indeed write the email.
After Senator Inhofe read Eckhart’s comments, Johnson vowed to launch a probe concerning the threatening e-mail. Johnson responded to Inhofe saying, “I was not aware of this quote.” He continued, “Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors.” Johnson then added, “This is an area I will look into for the record.” (See YouTube video of exchange between Senator Inhofe and Johnson)
See full blog on this issue with other examples of attacks on skeptics in recent months (including RFK Jr. lashing out at skeptics of global warming: ‘This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors’ (July 8, 2007) “ here.