Networks Ignore, Newspapers Mock N.Y. Climate Change Conference

Networks Ignore, Newspapers Mock N.Y. Climate Change Conference Nathan Burchfiel and Amy Menefee
Business & Media Institute
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
[align=left] All three networksâ?? evening news broadcasts utterly ignored a gathering of hundreds of people â?? scientists, economists, other experts and interested lay people â?? aimed at dispelling the media myth that there is â??consensusâ?� on climate changeâ??s causes, potential effects, and suggested solutions.[/align]
ABCâ??s â??World News,â?� CBSâ??s â??Evening Newsâ?� and NBCâ??s â??Nightly Newsâ?� couldnâ??t find time in the half-hour broadcasts March 3 to mention the International Conference on Climate Change, which runs through March 4 in New York City.
Two major national newspapers mentioned the Heartland Instituteâ??s conference, but relegated the story to deep within the papers and downplayed the gatheringâ??s credibility and significance.
(Article continues below)


In fact, none of the sources quoted in the major newspapersâ?? stories addressed substantive points made during the first day and a half of the conference â?? which ranged from the sunâ??s effects on the Earth to oceanic cooling cycles and the effects of limiting energy use in developing countries. Instead, newspaper reporters addressed â?? and distorted â?? the Heartland Instituteâ??s funding, labeled attendees â??deniers,â?� â??flat Earthersâ?� and â??lostâ?� and compared the meeting to â??Custerâ??s last stand.â?� But debunking actual claims made at the conference â?? well, that might have involved a little work.
The Washington Postâ??s Juliet Eilperin noted in a story published on page A16 that the Heartland Institute is â??funded by energy and health-care corporations.â?� She didnâ??t mention Heartlandâ??s disclaimer that â??no contributions from any energy corporations are being used to support this conference.â?�
Eilperin downplayed a major aspect of the conference â?? the release of a report from the â??Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Changeâ?� countering claims made by the United Nationsâ?? Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.
â??While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports,â?� Eilperin wrote, â??the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.â?�
The IPCC is made up of representatives selected by governments â?? hence â??Intergovernmentalâ?� â?? who may or may not be scientists. â??Most of the authors are scientists designated by member governments,â?� the IPCC says on its Web site. The reports may be written by scientists but are also subject to review by member governments.
But Eilperinâ??s characterization of the conference couldnâ??t hold a candle to The New York Timesâ?? Andrew Revkin, whose â??Reporterâ??s Notebookâ?� (read: opinion column) piece on the conference appeared on A20 in his paper.
Revkin wrote that conference speakers were â??trying hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways.â?�
He said a diversity of views amongst scientists â?? the conference features voices from across the global warming spectrum, especially on the causes of climate change â?? was a â??challengeâ?� for the conferenceâ??s mission. Maybe that explains why the media include so little diversity in their reports: it poses a â??challengeâ?�?
The newest Special Report from the Business & Media Institute, â??Global Warming Censored,â?� showed the network news routinely shuts out debate on climate issues, even from scientistsâ?? perspectives. In fact, no sources departing from the climate alarmist viewpoint were allowed in 80 percent of the stories studied.
Revkin included a note about Heartlandâ??s funding and said the groupâ??s â??antiregulatory philosophy has long been embraced by, and financially supported by, various industries and conservative donors.â?�
Revkin concluded his column by coyly noting that â??when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so,â?� implying that only 19 scientists were at the conference. If Revkin had paid closer attention, or simply asked conference organizers about the speakers and attendees, he would have learned that about 100 scientists participated in the conference. Those included experts on meteorology, climatology, geology, and physics, representing at least 30 universities.
Finally some balance?
While most media reports about climate change do not include the balance of the views represented at the conference, stories about the conference made sure to include mocking retorts from environmentalists.
Frank Oâ??Donnell, head of Clean Air Watch, told the Postâ??s Eilperin the conference â??looks like the climate equivalent of Custerâ??s last stand.â?� Eilperin also quoted League of Conservation Voters Gene Karpinski, who said heâ??s â??sure that the flat Earth society had a few final meetings before they broke up.â?�
Eilperin did acknowledge that â??the media and many politicians [are] now ignoring the climate skeptics.â?� Eilperinâ??s New York Times counterpart, Revkin, defended the practice of ignoring climate change skeptics.
In his piece, Revkin included his own sources of mocking retaliation. He quoted Riley Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University who bashed Heartland Instituteâ??s funding. Revkin also quoted Kert Davies, a campaigner for Greenpeace protesting the conference, who called it â??the largest convergence of the lost tribe of skeptics ever seen on the face of the earth.â?�
In a â??Dot Earthâ?� blog post about his story, Revkin later acknowledged that â??there is plenty of remaining uncertaintyâ?� surrounding global warming, but complained about having to cover the conference â?? he said writing his pieces took away from family time.
"Last night I would have loved nothing more than to play a bedtime song for my 9-year-old son, Jack, and then relax with my wife, a hard-working middle-school science teacher," he whined, before further dismissing those involved in the conference.
â??When Iâ??m forced to cover the edges of the discourse,â?� Revkin wrote, â??that threatens to obscure the enormous body of established science that is not in dispute, which should be enough to inform smart policy.â?� He didnâ??t point to any specific aspects of the â??quirkyâ?� conference as a threat to science.

Famed Hurricane Forecaster William Gray Predicts Global Cooling in 10 Years
Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
[align=left] [align=left] [align=left] It turns out Al Gore was wrong. The scientists arenâ??t all in agreement on global warming; thus there is no â??consensus.â?�[/align]
Prominent hurricane forecaster Dr. William M. Gray, a professor at Colorado State University, told the audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 4 in New York that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures related to the salinity (the amount of salt) in ocean water was responsible for some global warming that has taken place. However, he said that same cycle means a period of cooling would begin within 10 years.
â??We should begin to see cooling coming on,â?� Gray said. â??Iâ??m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.â?� Gray, 79, wasnâ??t sure if heâ??d be around to see his prediction come true.
(Article continues below)


â??I may not be around by that time,â?� Gray said. â??But, Iâ??ve asked some of my students to put dandelions on my grave if that happens.â?�
Gray criticized NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen, calling him â??the most egregious abuserâ?� of data. According to Gray, Hansenâ??s alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere.
â??[S]o he puts that much vapor in his model and of course he gets this,â?� Gray said. â??He must get upper troposphere where the temperature is seven degrees warmer for a doubl[ing of] CO2. Well, the reason he got that was â?? why this upper-level warming was there â?? was he put too much water vapor in the model.â?�
At the same conference March 3, the founder of The Weather Channel advocated suing carbon traders, including former Vice President Al Gore, to expose what he called â??the fraud of global warming.â?�
[/align]
[/align]

Son-of-ahhhhhh--bitch! I guess this means my "carbon credits" I invested my life savings in are now worthless............:thumbsup:




b0nger