Oxford University Think Tank Complains Media Aren't Covering Climate Change Issues Enough
An Oxford University think tank is taking the media to task for not doing more to whip up a frenzy about global warming.
Apparently the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism crunched the numbers and found that "[l]ess than 10 percent of the news articles written about last year's climate summit in Copenhagen dealt primarily with the science of climate change."
The study lamented the attention that was given to the ClimateGate scandal.
"Much coverage from Copenhagen instead focused on hacked e-mails from a British university that some skeptics took as evidence of efforts by scientists to ignore dissenting views. The scientists involved have since been cleared of wrongdoing," insisted a Reuters wire item on the study released today:
Author James Painter concluded that "science was under-reported" as the essential backdrop when about 120 world leaders met in Copenhagen but were unable to agree on a binding treaty to slow climate change.
[...]
"We need more discussion between scientists, journalists and policymakers on how to keep highly significant, slow-burn issues like climate change interesting and engaging to different audiences around the world," Painter wrote.
The study comes just two weeks before a UN summit of member nations' "environment ministers" is set to convene in Mexico.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What you say Biff, not so sure huffs Buffy?
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:02pm.
I agree, the LIES about the Global climate change fraud, errr Global warming, errrrr, Global cooling have NOT been reported nearly enough.
Very rarely do I agree with a think tank.
Hey wait a minute, they are lying again.............
Call me when the killer bees get here or global cooling is going to wipe out all our food and Florida will no longer exist and break off into the abyss....
There's a perfectly good reason for this . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:11pm.
. . . alleged under-reporting of the "science of climate change" -----
IT'S BEEN DEBUNKED.
Oxford need look no further than the UK's own high court ruling that the film "An Inconvenient Truth" could no longer be shown to British school children as science because it contained no fewer than 9 major errors (the polite word for lies).
And how does a university study determine that something is 'under-reported?" Based on what? The authors' opinion?
"We need more discussion between scientists, journalists and policymakers on how to keep highly significant, slow-burn issues like climate change interesting and engaging to different audiences around the world," Painter wrote.
Just keep doing what you and Gore, the WWF, and others have been doing: exaggerating and lying. Scare the little children; in the UK, thanks to Gore's film, many children believe that the British Isles will be largely underwater in their lifetime.
BTW, Bjorn Lomborg's documentary "Cool It!" is in theaters now. Prof. Lomborg is persona non grata with the AGW-cult because he points out their wasteful, haphazard, ineffective solutions.
Something is stirring these people up.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:10pm.
I turned on Morning Joe, I think it was, this AM and they were discussing Artic ice melting again, oceans rising 6", and whatever would happen to NYC, Boston, etc. if that happened. So I turned the TV off.
The Global Warmers are either the deluded or members of the snake oil salesmen club.
Something?
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:28pm.
The JournoList lives.
Oddly, I heard an interview of one of the (few) incoming freshman democrats today.
And guess what his talking points were? Green jobs, yada yada yada yada.
Hmmmmm.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
How much do the oceans have
Submitted by Edhenry on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:34pm.
How much do the oceans have to rise to eradicate the navy blue coastal areas?
I will leave my truck running and my house on 80 this winter, just in case.
Me too.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 6:01pm.
Sounds like a plan.
Gee, Al Gore...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 6:21pm.
...will have to sell that new coastal mansion he bought, huh? Poor guy, and with housing prices being what they are, he'll probably lose a lot of that climate change money he made on books and movies. But never fear! He's gonna be on Futurama again and I hear that pays big bucks! I just hope he can sell it before it's completely underwater
Talk about being out of your depth!
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:20pm.
"We need more discussion between scientists, journalists and policymakers on how to keep highly significant, slow-burn issues like climate change interesting and engaging to different audiences around the world"
So, a School of Journalism is now an expert on what should be publicly discussed about "climate change?" What's next, will the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism recommend that Journalists work with Walmart in deciding what should be stocked on their shelves?
Hay, Reuters, you're JOURNALISTS, not scientists, nor are you polititions. The only decisions you should be making on this subject is how to correctly punctuate the article that refers to what the others are saying. Leave the rest to those who actually have knowledge about a particular subject. Anything more is known as collusion, and that's not very objective.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not much of a think tank. As
Submitted by Apache on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:24pm.
Not much of a think tank. As an engineer, I get a little tired of non-scientist in the media claiming to speak for all scientists. Or more accurately "Some scientists" or "scientists say". Not to mention treating climate 'science' as if it had a track record and duration to compare with biology, physics, chemistry and the like. It is the young, hyperactive, mentally challenged child of the science world. They couldn't get a real degree using their ass backwards version of the scientific method. They would be laughed out of the room. Which seems to be happening to them anyway.
The most over-used term in AGW: peer-reviewed
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:50pm.
The non-scientists love to defend the AGW claims by insisting that the science is peer-reviewed, as if that's the last word in scientific debate.
But I've come to learn that peer-reviewed merely means that someone read a study and had know issue with it. There need not be any fact-checking.
Your interpretation of
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 12:45am.
Your interpretation of peer-reviewed is as flawed as is that of the AGW conspirators.
Actual scientific peer-review is suppposed to check not only facts, but also verify the underlying experimental, data collection and data processing methods used. Generally, the peer reviewers are supposed to be unaffiliated practitioners of the same discipline as author(s) under review. Fellow practitioners that they might be competent in the discipline. Unaffiliated that they might be impartial examiners of the work.
This has been regularly lacking in the AGW community. The reviewers are often intense partisans who are closely allied with the author(s). The author(s) have regularly refused to reveal their methods and raw data to outside examiners that their results might be replicated.
Okay here it is again.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:37pm.
The earth transitioned through 7 ice ages. That's SEVEN times the earth went from hot to cold and then back. All that before man walked the earth and burned his first piece of coal.
This time it's man. Please explain the previous SEVEN climate fluctuations.
What a crock of voodoo science!
A lot more than 7 "ice ages"
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:02pm.
A lot more than 7 "ice ages" if by that we mean glaciations separated by brief interglacial periods.. The Pleistocene alone has had at least that many.
Man! This Oxford bunch are
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 6:12pm.
Man! This Oxford bunch are dense, are they not? Global warming? That really a non starter. Not even the French belive that clap-trap any more. The Brits have wised up to. The exposed emails and hidden data. What a bunch of dummies.
Do not send your kids to Oxford! The professors are dummer than a box of rocks!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Climategate fallout...
Submitted by rogue operator on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 7:36pm.
Did you read the PR files connected to Climategate? It shows the left's deliberate alarmism and propaganda. You environmentalists are done. Move on to global cooling or whatever your next brilliant plot for grant funding and significance is.
How's that Ozone Hole doin'?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:19pm.
Can we go back to aerosol deodorants now?
Number three Red jeep
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:39pm.
Damn Red Jeep, I remembered the Killer bees and the Global "cooling" LIES, but I forgot about the Ozone.......
I think my Mom used too much Aquanet in the bathroom downstairs and the buzz lasted on me for years after just by the "contact buzz"........