Is the Media More Liberal Than the United Nations?

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is meeting this week in Valencia, Spain, to adopt and approve the contents of its Fourth Assessment Report first released in February.

If expectations for the proceedings pan out, it seems quite likely that media will change their view of this organization, and begin attacking it as too conservative. In fact, in anticipation of this gathering, Agence France-Presse has already done so (emphasis added throughout):

Some voices, including from within the IPCC itself, fear the panel's grand report will be badly out of date before it is even printed. Others quietly criticize the organization as being too conservative in its appreciation of the climate threat.

Though AFP didn't admit it, the fear is that the final version of AR4 isn't nearly as alarmist as recent press reports and claims by Hollywoodans like Nobel Laureate Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Laurie David, and Sheryl Crow:

But some experts are worried, fearing that the IPCC's ponderous machinery, which gives birth to a new review only every five or six years, is falling dangerously behind with what's happening to Earth's climate systems.

The new report notably fails to take into account a batch of dramatic recent evidence, including the shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap, glacier loss in Greenland, a surge in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and an apparent slowing of Earth's ability to absorb greenhouse gases, they say.

Of course, AFP chose not to inform readers of other issues that have surfaced since AR4 was first released including record levels of ice now present in Antarctica, and a huge mistake in how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calculated temperatures this decade which radically altered America's warmest years in history rankings.

Recognizing some of the hypocrisies, environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg wrote an op-ed for the British Telegraph Sunday chronicling the disparities between what the IPCC has forecast, and the unscientific hysteria being disseminated by Gore and his sycophant devotees (emphasis added):

While Gore was creating alarm with his belief that a 20-foot-high wall of water would inundate low-lying cities, the IPCC showed us we should realistically prepare for a rise of one foot or so by the end of the century. Beyond the dramatic difference, it is also worth putting that one foot in perspective. Over the last 150 years, sea levels rose about one foot - yet, did we notice?

Most tellingly, while Gore was raising fears about the Gulf Stream halting and a new Ice Age starting, the scientists discounted the prospect entirely.

The Gulf Stream takes warm water from around Mexico and pushes it toward Europe. Around 8,000 years ago, a melting lake in the region of the present-day Canadian Great Lakes broke through and a massive torrent of cold, fresh water flooded into the North Atlantic, significantly slowing the Gulf Stream for around 400 years. Gore worries that Greenland's ice shelves could melt and do the same thing again.

Ice in Greenland is obviously melting. But over the next century, it'll spill 1,000 times less water into the ocean than occurred 8,000 years ago. It will have a negligible effect on the Gulf Stream.

In his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Gore claimed that scientists were discovering that the current is "surprisingly fragile". However, the IPCC scientists write in their 2007 report: "None of the current models simulates an abrupt reduction or shut-down" of the Gulf Stream.

As such, it's going to be very interesting to see how the IPCC meeting in Spain this week is covered. After all, the media have loved referencing the findings of this organization, although usually by cherry-picking sections of its reports that support the global warming myth whilst ignoring those that don't.

However, if the press are going to continue to fawn over Gore's much more alarmist version of the scam, how will press outlets report the goings on in Spain without threatening their precious canard concerning a supposed scientific consensus?

Of course, the reader should be aware that most scientists that don't buy into the charade are also antagonistic towards many of the declarations of the IPCC.

But, what has deliciously happened in the nine months that have followed the release of AR4 is that much of the climate alarmists - hysterically including the man that shared a Nobel Peace Price with said panel - have actually become even more cataclysmic in their assessments and predictions for the supposedly warming planet than this U.N body.

Imagine that: the media are now more liberal than the good folks at the United Nations.