Sigh. Here we go again–maybe. When certain facts or developments in a story don’t support the line of reportage the MSM wants to pursue, too often, they simply resort to non journalism by omission, perhaps in the hope that their non coverage will make it go away.
It appears that Climategate may be the next big story receive the old MSM general cold shoulder. From a story in today’s AP, byline Arthur Max:
The U.S. and China have yet to address the critical issue of how to raise the hundreds of billions of dollars needed annually to rescue poor countries from storms, floods and drought that are expected to become more severe as greenhouse gases worsen…Scientists say the industrial countries must slash carbon emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 below 1990 to prevent the Earth from adding two degrees Centigrade (3.6F), the maximum considered safe. In addition, developing countries need to lower their emissions growth by 15 to 30 percent from business as usual, according to the authoritative U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
None of this is settled science, as one would think reading the story in a vacuum. Indeed, all knowledgeable climate scientists do not say that we must “slash carbon [dioxide] emissions by that amount, as the term “scientists say,” implies. Accuracy requires the story to say, “some scientists,” or perhaps even, “many scientists,say…” And thanks to Climategate, the IPPC is not so authoritative anymore (if it ever really was). Indeed, Climategate has called the entire field into significant question generally, and the IPCC opinion specifically. Until the matter is fully investigated–not a quick hearing and a shove under the proverbial rug–climate change hysteria will remain under a cloud that all the media wishful thinking and malpractice will not disperse.
There was a time when the media prided itself on being a skeptical counter weight to the Establishment. Now, they consider themselves part of the Establishment. The entire field would be better off if reporters started practicing real journalism again.
And maybe, just maybe, they are starting to do just that. Today’s New York Times has a real story about the controversy that actually reports on the importance and meaning of Climategate. From the story, byline Andrew C. Revkin,:
Some prominent climate scientists are calling for changes in the way research on global warming is conducted after a British university said thousands of private e-mail messages and documents had been stolen from its climate center. The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.
“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology. She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.
But for alternative media’s pressure, I doubt this story would be in the paper. Still, the ice may, at last, be melting. Real journalism sells papers. Where the NYT goes, the rest of the MSM tend to follow.
November 28th, 2009 | 1:31 pm
Let’s see:
a) subverting the peer review process
b) stacking the UN IPCC
c) obstruction of the Freedom on information act
d) breach of university and state ethics codes
… and we haven’t even talked about the data yet.
Climate Science – the new Ponzi scheme!
Is this what MSM supports?
November 28th, 2009 | 2:10 pm
The new MSM’s reporting it – Google News
November 28th, 2009 | 2:22 pm
But wasn’t Andrew C. Revkin who wrote that NY Times article specifically mentioned in the emails? As ‘Andy’? I’d have to see an article in that paper or LA Times etc by someone else to believe it isn’t neutral ass covering, by a specific individual and publication, rather than an intent to actually cover the news.
November 28th, 2009 | 2:24 pm
Lemmings:
The world runs pel mel to dive off the cliffs of reason. The driving force for this being the beck and call of the IPCC and its minions. Who scurry to curry favor among themselves. Who’s back slapping falsifications are now so entrenched in the unconsciousness of the world that we, the lemmings, continue headlong.
So bizzarre, that it seems largely the media is either still unaware of the travesty, or are trying to paper over it. As though, by so doing it will go away, or cease to exist.
November 28th, 2009 | 2:36 pm
The actual hacked climate model source code explained by a software developer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYxk7pnmMFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp4sMasX-_8
This is better than the emails, trust me.
November 28th, 2009 | 3:25 pm
[...] From FirstThings.com: Climategate: The Ice Begins to Melt on MSM’s Refusal to Practice Journalism [...]
November 28th, 2009 | 4:32 pm
thousands of private e-mail messages and documents had been stolen
I wish this meme would die. None of the e-mails are from private accounts (gmail, yahoo, hotmail, etc). They’re all e-mails to and from the university/government addresses. I don’t consider my company e-mails private – the company I work for owns them, not I – and neither should these researchers. I think this story will follow the same trajectory as the British expense scandal did – with lots of resignations from the principals involved.
November 28th, 2009 | 7:46 pm
In my opinion, the MAJOR reason why this story is being ignored by the main media is because they have shareholder companies gearing themselves heavily into the Carbon trade / futures / investment market.
Furthermore, The World Bank, the IMF, along with most of the major banks of the world have all poured billions into the carbon trading system.
In short, if you follow the real money trail, you will see that most of the worlds billionaires, media barons, banks & other international money making organizations are up to their eyeballs in Carbon trading investments.
Aqua Fyre
November 28th, 2009 | 7:54 pm
Maybe at the bottom it’s not so much an agenda – maybe rather the MSM can no longer find, or afford to pay, people who are even basically competent in the areas they are supposed to cover. That does of course open the door for all kinds of outside agendas.
I have a subscription to the most renowned Canadian newspaper. For a long time now, their coverage of all things scientific, medical or in any way more complicated than a tax hike or traffic accident has been pitiful. So, if something like this scandal comes along, the little twits just run for cover.
November 28th, 2009 | 8:55 pm
Mike: Some truth to that. And so general reporters rely on the “experts.” But there are also a lot of science/environment writers who DO have more expertise but have gone totally in the tank. Alas. Thanks for stopping by.
November 29th, 2009 | 7:47 am
“When things don’t make sense, follow the money”. Here we have a cabal of “climate scientists” (whatever the heck that is) who have actively cooked the books and subverted their “peer review” system to the point where they have squelched contrary views. Next, they have hyped their model through the use of willing shills such as Algore(tm) and political players who, without a crisis to drive them wouldn’t be suited to be dog-catchers. Sprinkle in a lot of grant money and other “gifts” from friendly sources (hmm, I wonder if George Soros has a hand in this) and the whole concoction turns into a climate based Bernie Maddof story.
Oh yes, also throw in the uninformed eco-religious “greenieweenies” who feel their motives are so pure that the rest of the world must bow down at their altar of Gaia. They have all been caught with their hands in the cookie jar – there is indeed a righteous God!
November 29th, 2009 | 12:23 pm
The problem stems from the new “environmental journalists.” I have a BS in Journalism and witnessed first hand the types of people who sought a career in “environmental journalism.” These folks are diehard environmentalists without a bone of objectivity in their bodies when it comes to environmental issues. They are advocates, not reporters. They buy the environmental dogma without question.
To fix the problem, the MSM must stop hiring those with an obvious bias from writing straight news stories on environmental issues. Skepticism is engrained in other areas of journalistic interest. Not with the environment.
November 29th, 2009 | 4:39 pm
Will everyone opposed to our gathering in Copenhagen please calm down.
The MSM is on notice not to rock the boat. This just can’t be postponed. It’s about redistributing wealth among countries and into the pockets of a select few Co2 czars. Oh, I know it appears now that there is much uncertainty into man’s contribution to climate change now that the CRU research has been uncloaked. What is certain by my calculations is that billions of $$$$ will change hands and a fortunate few will become instantly wealthy beyond imagining if this can be rammed down everyone’s throat before real investigations are made into the CRU allegations. Since Phil & I are a couple of the lucky ones who orchestrated, er, organized this charade, er conference, please STFU until after Copenhagen.
Sincerely,
algour
December 2nd, 2009 | 1:40 pm
[...] Climategate: The Ice Begins to Melt on MSM’s Refusal to Practice Journalism [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact