Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

News media networks report global warming 92 times, versus global pause, zero times
JoNova ^ | July 12th, 2013 | Joanne

Posted on 07/15/2013 6:11:11 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

As I keep saying, it’s not that the media has a problem, the truth is the media IS the problem.

If we had accurate and balanced reporting the global warming meme would have crashed and burned long ago, voters would have said “No thanks”; politicians would have wasted less money; scientists would be researching useful things; universities would have to fire professors who can’t reason, and we would all be richer.

So when the budget office says our ABC costs us $1 billion, I say No, the cost is measured in national GDP.

No wonder most of us have given up watching the old media.

Here’s a study, by the Media Research Centre, reported in the Wall St Journal. Hat tip to the HockeySchtick blog and Tom Nelson. It refers to US networks so “ABC” means the American variety. Curiously, the New York Times looks good in comparison to the network news. It told its readers about the global pause only six months after its foreign competitors did. It was only a few years behind the bloggers.

Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming All 92 Times

ABC, CBS and NBC ignore ‘mystery’ warming plateau in favor of alarmism about sea levels, allergies, weather.

From the Media Research Center

Recent years’ slowdown in global warming completely ignored by networks 92 climate change stories in 2013.

Stories citing experts or the latest studies promoting alarmism get covered more than 8 times as often as critical experts and studies.

Old-media bias means 8 times the alarmism

Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about “climate change” or “global warming.” Not a single one of those stories mentioned the “warming plateau” reported even by The New York Times on June 10. The Times wrote, “The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.” Even though the Times piece wasn’t published until June 10, a warming slowdown had been reported by foreign media outlets in November 2012, and by The Economist online in March, Reuters in April and BBC online in May of 2013.

The problems with climate forecasting models weren’t mentioned either, even though a researcher at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg found that many climate models couldn’t correctly model known temperatures in China. Investor’s Business Daily reported on March 28 that “Only half of the 21 analyzed climate models were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China,” he said. “Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change.”

Most of the study involves example after example of the one-sided media coverage we have already discussed here in detail. It would be interesting to see a study of UK, Canada and Australian media statistics.

Perhaps there is some good news? Things have improved since 2007 when skeptics got 1 mention in 13. Back then CBS was practically a climate propaganda machine with a 38 to 1 ratio of alarm versus calm.

There’s a bit of a history of these things in the media:

Another BMI Special Report, Fire and Ice, noted that print media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in 100 years. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling. BMI conducted an extensive analysis of print media’s climate change coverage back to the late 1800s.
It found that many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – in the 1970s. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895.


The MRC’s Business and Media Institute analyzed all stories mentioning “climate change” or “global warming’ on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” “World News with Diane Sawyer,” “World News Saturday” and “World News Sunday,” CBS’s “This Morning,” and “Evening News” and NBC’s “Today” and “Nightly News” from Jan. 1, 2013, to June 15, 2013. A few casual mentions, such as the mention of climate change in a a fashion story, were excluded from the analysis.


Image adapted from wikimedia: OTVbelweder-front.jpg Tube TV-set of 1957-60, model OT-1471 “Belweder”. 14-inch screen diagonal. Designed & made in Poland.

The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot

TOPICS: Conspiracy; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: austrakia; climatechange; globalwarminghoax; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills

1 posted on 07/15/2013 6:11:11 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

As a military brat, I spent years in both Kansas and Maryland back in the 50s and the temps we are suffering through now were not uncommon back in the day. I think we notice it more now because of the abundance of AC ... all we had back then were fans. Low and behold, we survived (and nobody screamed about global warming). Just sayn’

2 posted on 07/15/2013 6:17:43 PM PDT by doc1019 (Get our troops the hell out of the ME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Hey Ernest,

A lot of Greenie sites are denying the deniers and saying that 2005 was the hottest year on record. The problem is, like the hockey stick graph, they can do anything with statistics if they choose to be slightly less than honest about the way they are using them or what they are actually comparing them to.

Our media, lazy as they are, tend to take all of the articles from one or two sources. They don’t care as long as their boss is happy and so they churn out more bull for the readers, who also don’t want to hear anything that contradicts the party line.

Keep up the good fight


3 posted on 07/15/2013 6:19:41 PM PDT by melsec (Once a Jolly Swagman camped by a Billabong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: melsec

They often pull that 2010 & 2005 were higher and that the 2000s were a hotter decade than the 1990’s

It’s total Bull

1st, 1998 was the warmest year. The Metoffice, UAH, RSS and the Japanese Metrology Agency all have 1998 as the warmest. That sounds like consensus to me.

The GISS run by James Hansen (The NOAA uses Hansen data so they are the same) is the only one that has 2005 & 2010 as higher and that’s only after they made adjustment after the fact. The GISS originally had 1998 higher but he went back and adjusted the data by replacing real readings with his estimates. James Hansen is the leading Global Warming Activist and admits it’s OK to lie and exaggerate for the global warming cause. So sorry his 2010 vs the other four organizations who all exactly match each other at 1998 is suspect to say the least.

Even if you believe Hansen is on the up & up, he is still the outlier. Gotta go with the Consensus.

2nd, The 2000s were only higher than 1990’s because Mt. Pinatubo eruption cooled the early 90s by 0.5°F . Add that 0.5°F to 1993 or 1994 and those years would have been warmer than any year in the 00s and possibly warmer than 1998.

3rd, It doesn’t matter if the 00’s were higher than the 90’s because they still show that the temperatures have stalled. The Late 80’s were warmer than the early 80’s, the early 90’s were warmer than the late 80’s and the Late 90’s were warmer than the early 90’s. The upward trend ends there as the late 00’s are the same temperature as the early 00’s and so far the early 10’s have been less than the 00’s

4th, All computer models in the late 90’s/ Early 2000’s predicted we would be 1 or 2 degrees higher by now. When your predictions fail and your models are wrong your theory is wrong.

4 posted on 07/15/2013 6:54:32 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: qam1
All those guys play with the data.

Especially Hansen.

I go with the satellite data from Roy Spencer.

More reliable since it includes the data over the 70% of the Globe over the oceans.

5 posted on 07/15/2013 8:08:36 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: qam1

Thanks for that - I know I can always find answers (normally from Ernest) on these sort of statements - I am gunna keep your post if that is ok. Yes I know they chop and change on who they rely on for data - if it suits their cause they will use it - if not - then it never existed - not exactly scientific.



6 posted on 07/15/2013 8:58:52 PM PDT by melsec (Once a Jolly Swagman camped by a Billabong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: melsec
This is the Hansen Quote where he Admits it's OK to Lie

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. - James Hansen Scientific American in March, 2004

Extreme Scenarios - in other words LIES!!!!

And as for 2005 being the warmest year

See NOAA own site


The 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. One data set, in use at NCDC since the late 1990s, produced a global annual temperature for 2005 that was slightly below 1998. An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998.

So James Hansen, a Global Warming Activist, who has made millions off fighting Global Warming and who says it's OK to lie by using Extreme Scenarios made a program using "innovative algorithms"

and we are suppose to believe him over the others?

Sorry, 1998 was the clearly warmest year

7 posted on 07/15/2013 9:17:57 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson