Headline: '2008 The Year Man-made Global Warming Was Disproved'

Headline: '2008 The Year Man-made Global Warming Was Disproved'

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
December 27, 2008 - 14:54 ET

Can you imagine a major American newspaper publishing the headline "2008 Was the Year Man-made Global Warming Was Disproved?"

No...neither can I.

Yet, supporting the view that foreign press outlets are more willing to present both sides of this debate, the British Telegraph published a piece Saturday most climate alarmists on this side of the Atlantic would never dare:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Early on, the author pointed out the absurdity of press outlets in May predicting climate change would destroy the winter sports industry, in particular Alpine skiing; seven months later, "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation."

This is especially ironic given an article published in Wednesday's Rocky Mountain News:

Colorado’s ski areas will have to carve runs higher up the mountains and triple their snowmaking if they are to co-exist with global warming over the coming decades, a new study says.

That extra snowmaking will require a lot more water at a time when it is very expensive to buy senior water rights, says the study presented today to the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. And it would have to come from a distance away, because any diversion close by would harm wildlife habitats.

Gondolas will have to be revamped — to take skiers from skimpy snow at the bottom of the mountain high up to where there is a permanent snowpack.

The following was reported the same day by Julie Rust, the director of Vail, Colorado's, ski patrol:

As of this morning, we have had 148 inches of cumulative snowfall, 98 inches just this month! Vail is seeing the best December snow in 8 years. This is good stuff!

This was the Local's Lowdown from Aspen Friday:

This has to be the best Christmas skiing week I can recall in my 15 year tenure in Aspen. Earlier this week we had a very healthy dumping of snow and my legs are still suffering for it. Knee to thigh deep snow on top of the mountains. You had to find the steepest pitches just to get enough speed to go down.

In fact, conditions look pretty spectacular for this early in the season all over Colorado according to that state's official ski report website.

Ain't it delicious?

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Well, there you go....the

December 27, 2008 - 15:13 ET by motherbelt

Well, there you go....the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.... even before "the moment" when Obama accepted the nomination!

But he'll take credit for it anyway.

Concur, even if the

December 27, 2008 - 15:18 ET by BD

Concur, even if the onlything Barry is able to do is get ONE SINGLE SUV off the road, the press will announce it as the effort that saved humankind and the world.

Why go to the mountains when one can snowmobile in the yard.

December 27, 2008 - 15:13 ET by upcountrywater

One way to save energy, screw that, snow in the yard makes it easer to load the snow machines on the trailer.

think snow

FREEDOM

(D)

Why are silly liberals

December 27, 2008 - 15:16 ET by MrSnuggles

Why are silly liberals always hoping and praying for the worst to happen? They want us to lose in Iraq, they want disasterous weather events, they want ridiculously high gas prices, etc. Could it possibly be that what is bad for America is good for the dems in their quest to institute communism/marxism/socialism on the rest of us?

Its is because hoping for

December 27, 2008 - 15:20 ET by BD

Its is because hoping for the worst gives them comfort in their mediocrity.....

If everyone is miserable, then no one is unfairly happy.

That's right

December 27, 2008 - 15:36 ET by Blonde

Socialism....where misery is truly equal.

Contrary to their bleatings

December 27, 2008 - 17:03 ET by ahusser

I believe that the left are control freaks who actually hate humanity. Notice they want to control population through birth control and abortion. They believe that man and his works are evil and corrupt and wish to harken back to a "simpler time" hence their glorification of native aboriginals barely out of the stone age. They would get rid of most of the people on the planet if they could except of course the elect (them) who would live in harmony with nature. Barring this scenario they would like to totally control humans because folks with free will may disagree with their all knowing righteousness.

This of course is delusional as nature basically kicks our butts when not prepared. Humanity (for the most part and yes there are exceptions) took 5 thousand years to defend ourselves from most of the ravages of nature i.e. famine, dirt, disease, pestilence, etc. It took a lot of technology with all its successes and failures, trials and errors to make the modern world. To not see the the complexity of the modern world and to their demand of utopian perfections is part of their mental disorder.

Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster

Liberals: Birth/population

December 27, 2008 - 17:13 ET by choselife3x

Liberals:
Birth/population control and abortion= GOOD

Self defense and capital punishment= BAD

Idiots.

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

MrS

December 27, 2008 - 15:22 ET by Noel Sheppard

MrS,

Of course. This is what the Democrats learned from the Depression: the worse things get, the more they can control the population and its money. ns

Noel

December 27, 2008 - 16:25 ET by DoktorFranken

And you were enjoying the heck out of this compilation of contrary reportage from the Left - weren't you. Admit it! I could feel the joy coming through your keyboard and onto the 'page'.

Yes, and it's about time that there is some truth coming out to fight this propaganda battle. When I talk to young people (5-21) and I see the fear in their eyes when I discuss 'Global Warming', I get furious at the guy who once yelled (more like 'screamed') that the 'Right' was playing on the fears of the people. Gore, of course. The Head Headcase.

I have asked some of my old Leftist friends to come shovel me out of the Global Warming we've had in Illinois for the past couple of weeks. For some strange reason, they don't seem amused.

It's too bad that this kind of fear mongering is not illegal. We could have an economic recovery from building all of the new prisons.

DF

December 27, 2008 - 16:37 ET by Noel Sheppard

DF,

Well, I've been saying for two years that the foreign press, even in countries whose governments are more supportive of carbon cap-and-trade schemes than ours, do a much better job of presenting both sides of the global warming debate. On any given day, realistic articles on this subject posted at Drudge are virtually always from either Britain, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. You almost never see a skeptical article from our press. It's pathetic. ns

Everything

December 27, 2008 - 17:22 ET by doug1950

is a "crisis"! Just proclaim something a crisis and thousands, no millions of people either too stupid or too lazy to find out for themselves will jump on the crisis bus just to get a free ride. Don't you remember the Clinton White House in the earliest days. There was a new crisis every other day (the Nanny crisis jumps to mind). Create chaos and confusion, doubts, fear and if a person is not grounded in reality anyway you have instant support for any cockamamy plan you can throw together. Meanwhile, Rome is burning but all eyes are diverted to the "Crisis de Jour". It is just a variation of the old bait and switch scheme.

Even if the plan falls flatter than a pregnant pole vaulter their comments will be "At least they tried". This is always said with a vacant stare, a slight head wobble with hands clasped in front of them.

I think it's because they

December 27, 2008 - 15:51 ET by motherbelt

I think it's because they want to portray themselves as the ones who will save us from all those terrible things.

This, of course, is not withstanding the fact that they have been fighting a "war on poverty" for 40 years and we still have poverty.

And after a couple of years in Iraq they started saying we should quit.

The more trouble...

December 27, 2008 - 19:49 ET by tim_gallant

The more trouble, the more golden opportunities for Big Daddy Government to intervene.

http://www.changeint...

If they did that here

December 27, 2008 - 16:10 ET by Worried

Al Gore might demand they be put in jail for doubting the hoax he has perpetrated on those unable to think in America. You know it may come to that one day, when REAL scientists are jailed for providing SCIENTIFIC DATA disputing the myth of global warming. Just like Galileo dared speak up against the prevailing theory of his day that the earth circled the sun.

By the way, Silverton, Colorado has received over 200 inches of snow in the last few weeks. Guess where I read that news today? The Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News (they have a combined paper on Saturdays).

With all the snow falling

December 27, 2008 - 18:16 ET by jistincase

With all the snow falling everywhere and the record low temps I think that it is fitting to listen to a little George Carlin about his take on the subject. I know he was a liberal but at least he wasn't stupid like so many of them are. Link to video about global warming.

http://www.youtube.c...

→ Wait a Sec!!

December 27, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Cool Arrow

Was it not the Shahinshah himself who said he would calm the seas and cool the Planet?

Anybody got a link to that quote? I know he was smiling when he said it, but doth not even that which he says in jest come true?

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Noel... This article

December 27, 2008 - 19:04 ET by Clear thinker

Noel...

This article tells me that there still may be hope. Not Obama's kind of hope, the real kind. Everyone should send multiple copies of this piece to both Obama and Gore, as it seems they both need an education.

Oh, have you seen Gore's latest Alert email to his cult... Al Gore Wants You & Your Money!

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

If all this is global

December 27, 2008 - 19:17 ET by Nof

If all this is global warming then I'm real scared of what global cooling is gonna do to us!

Here is proof global warming has slammed me this year!

Proof!

More Proof!

Even more proof!

Even the NWS see's it!

Wow this is the most global warming we've seen since the 50/60's! Can't you see it? White is black, black is white!

Bravo Christopher Booker of

December 27, 2008 - 19:30 ET by TruthMatters

Bravo Christopher Booker of the British Telegraph. My hats off to you!

coldest december

December 27, 2008 - 20:46 ET by jackie3

In NY we just had one of the coldest decembers on record. Got over 2 feet of snow in 24 hours. The ice caps aren't melting in my neck of the woods, Al.

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

2008 the Year of more Global Cooling

December 27, 2008 - 21:19 ET by PopularTech

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Good evening PT

December 27, 2008 - 22:25 ET by cocodrie

You only needed one reference>/p>

The Farmers Almanac says we are in for a severe winter. They'r never wrong.

Excellent PT! Thank you.

December 27, 2008 - 23:12 ET by GregE

Excellent PT! Thank you.

NP - it is still a work in progress

December 28, 2008 - 09:19 ET by PopularTech

We still have a few more days left in 2008 and I still have more searching to do.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Tired of Shoveling Global Warming Out of Driveway

December 27, 2008 - 21:49 ET by The Smokin Frog

I really could use some 'real global warming' about now. The fake global warming ruined Christmas Eve completely. I was so iced in (Poconos, Eastern PA) that I had to cancel a doctor's appointment, a visit with friends and Christmas Eve Service. I am very tired of shoveling all of this global warming out of my driveway as well. It is now four days later and finally the ice is melting. Al Gore and his groupies are nimrods.

majority of opinion / column pieces concurring with Booker

December 28, 2008 - 12:41 ET by Giles Winterbourne

The basic premise of NS's post is wrong:

Do a database search of national papers and you'll note that there is actually a majority of opinion / column pieces concurring with Booker.

You should be able to access Proquest and / or Ebsco through your public library website - won't even have to put on pants - and do some basic research before making such an easily refutable claim as '...climate alarmists on this side of the Atlantic would never dare...'

Actually, adding in international papers doesn't change that perspective.

Unfortunately, the science sections tend to note verifiable research reminding us that most of those opinion pieces are in the right section.

so Giles

December 28, 2008 - 12:46 ET by botg

you're saying there's concensus that AGW is bull?? Cool we can end the debate!! < /sarc off >

----- Radical Liberal

Sure, if you remember which section of the paper

December 28, 2008 - 13:00 ET by Giles Winterbourne

the Booker piece is in.

However, when making decisions about the quality, accuracy, coverage, expertise, and bias of information being used, it is good to review basic resource evaluation tools:

Giles

December 28, 2008 - 13:18 ET by botg

who commented on Booker?

I was merely commenting on your assertion that the American media is reporting that AGW is bull

compredo verne???

----- Radical Liberal

Booker

December 28, 2008 - 13:56 ET by Giles Winterbourne

is in the columns section. Where opinion goes. Where one would find a preponderance of pieces written as anti-scientific propaganda.

However, the science section tends, by citing actual science, more to the actual state of affairs.

So, if you're attempting to say that because the opinion pieces advocate the inactivist position that the science is stating that '..AGW is bull ..', then there is a major flaw in the logic.

When opinion pieces and local weather are being cited as 'proof' that '..AGW is bull ..' it further weakens the inactivist argument.

what have i said? i've

December 28, 2008 - 14:05 ET by botg

what have i said? i've merely commented on what you post!!

btw: i've yet to read anti-scientific propaganda opinion pieces, perhaps you can link to an article that makes the point 'science sucks' ??

----- Radical Liberal

Ignore Giles

December 28, 2008 - 14:11 ET by choselife3x

And he'll g'way. He's just creeping around trying to find someplace noisy and crowded to crap. (He can't concentrate when it's quiet.)

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

but it is fun to reveal the

December 28, 2008 - 14:41 ET by botg

but it is fun to reveal the inane things he posits. Next he'll be telling us the IPPC conclusions are science and not political hackery. He points out that the American media agrees with Booker then retreats to a 'well thats opinion pieces, the science pieces disagree' all the while knowing the science is what's in dispute. He mischaracterizes the debate as pro-science vs anti-science all the while he is one advocating ending the scientific debate which is the very root of science. He is the one wishing to quash the facts which mitagate against his position. So let him bring the facts to bear, not some biased links (i'll not bother to waste my time going after such) Let him prove that there is a science side and a non-science side. After all he makes a distinction between 'opinion' pieces and 'science' pieces being too foolish to realize they are all opinion. Or let him PROVE otherwise since he asserted it let him prove.

----- Radical Liberal

Debate? Limited Disclosur

December 28, 2008 - 15:05 ET by danbo

Debate?

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

Actually,

December 28, 2008 - 15:04 ET by Giles Winterbourne

The point I made was the opinion section has a preponderance of inactivist writing; the science section points to the research showing the real state of the science.

"He points out that the American media agrees with Booker then retreats to a 'well thats opinion pieces,..." , is incorrect. NS was stating that US papers don't post inactivist pieces, implying that one needs to read overseas publications to get 'the truth' - I pointed out in my first post that even brief research on the topic proves otherwise.

you asserted but made no

December 28, 2008 - 15:17 ET by botg

you asserted but made no point at all.
now if you wish to try to make a point show us how the articles based on position in a newspaper makes them opinion or fact. Be honest here G you know they are all opinion until you prove differently but you're not about proof are you?

----- Radical Liberal

Well, to start:

December 28, 2008 - 15:42 ET by Giles Winterbourne

It is in the Comments / Columnists section - As I pointed out, that is where most of the inactivist writing gets posted
No citations or links to corroborating data
Using the evaluation guide commented on below, there is no proof he - and most writers in the opinion section - has any credibility, especially scientific

nawh nawh nawh nawh

December 28, 2008 - 15:51 ET by botg

nawh nawh nawh nawh nawh -- is not a logical argument. Until the debate is settled it's all opinion. You seem to prefer activist writings? Sounds biased on face of it.

----- Radical Liberal

Giles. You might want tio

December 28, 2008 - 14:44 ET by danbo

Giles. You might want to consider reading your own links and learning from them.

Your second one points to the problems with peer reviewed articles. Including fradulent papers that were peer reviewed and published. (Some as jokes.) That it is inheriently unscientific to trust an expert instead of making a personal evaluation of the experts reason for the conclusion. (Page 2)

It also discusses the use of the internet to find unpeer reviewed science that is good and scientific.

The author also tends to ignore the policy statements of professional organizations that pretends to reflect the consensus of it's members.

There is also a discussion of the evaluation of content. In theoretical papers it starts from accepted laws of nature and provides enough information for others to duplicate it.

In expermintal papers there should be a discussion of methods and again enough information to allow skilled readers to duplicate. The reader needs to be able to evaluate if the methods are adequate or if there are shortcomings and problems that the author failed to recognize.

These are reasons why a lot of us are skeptics.

You might want to read your own links.

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

Perhaps a closer reading is in order

December 28, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Giles Winterbourne

"Most of the people in a university library seem to be students who use the library as a quiet place to read a textbook, or to do homework. I am dismayed at this lack of use of scholarly journals and books in university libraries, because these libraries contain valuable resources that are not found on the Internet, but it does seem to be a fact that printed journals are not frequently used." (my bold)

It is also worth noting:

He spends a fair amount of time discussing how to establish if an author has credibility and expertise - critical in your self analysis of the resource
His main problem with peer-reviewed journals is a lack of free access online, not perceived inaccuracies
He provides a list of evaluation sources which include two of my other evaluation links.

As your link pointed out.

December 28, 2008 - 16:20 ET by danbo

As your link pointed out. Journals and text books are read by few. The internet is instant and read by many. And he did point out that peer review does not assure it is correct. And also stated that many internet sites are good science.

You may want to re read.

As my system did not allow me to copy and paste I welcome everyone to read it.

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

When you stated 'I am

December 28, 2008 - 16:47 ET by danbo

When you stated 'I am dismayed at this lack of use of scholarly journals and books in university libraries, because these libraries contain valuable resources that are not found on the Internet, but it does seem to be a fact that printed journals are not frequently used." you ignore the paragraph in front of it.

..."continue to believe that publishing in traditional paper media ... is somehow "better" or "more credible" than posting a webpage on the internet. This belief puts too much emphasis on peer review and ignore both the content of the work and its impact."

You also ignored this statement: "Truth does not depend on the number of experts who endorse it. ... Endorsement by authorities is more characteristic of religious dogma than scientific Truth."

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

Also note:

December 28, 2008 - 18:24 ET by Giles Winterbourne

Standler puts a lot of reliance on the reader having enough expertise, and facility with critical analysis, to be able to determine if authors are credible, and more importantly have reached logical conclusions. Meaning that the reader needs to have a certain level of expertise themselves or interested and capable of following links and divergent threads of thinking
He makes assertions without providing examples; esp. ref. to science and consensus
I provided two other evaluation tools and a tutorial on evaluation. The three corroborate Standler's basic information without the editorializing on sources he's predisposed to dislike or advocating for.
He specifically notes "Any author who has written at least several papers that were published in respected,peer-reviewed scholarly journals is obviously capable of continuing to produce similar quality work, even if that work is posted on the Internet, instead of published in a peer-reviewed journal." So publishing in journals that are accepted as quality is a way to ascertain quality of writing. He also advocates that authors should be well credentialed.

# 1. Yes he does rely on

December 28, 2008 - 18:44 ET by danbo

# 1. Yes he does rely on the ability of readers to evaluate. And actually feels the reader should evaluate. Your problem is you can't handle that many of us have the ability to evaluate. And disagree. Nuf said.

# 2 Does that mean that the author and you disagree on consensus vrs science? His credentials? Yours?

#3 sorry Chaising down one was enough. I didn't check the other 2. I basically agree with #2. We each have a responsibility to evaluate rather than just take as law. PS Do you really want me reading the other 2? Link 1 required a program I didn't have. And the one I read hardly supported you.

#4 I'm glad you mentioned authors who had written several papers. Yet you seem to want to ignore a whole group of scientist that have written peer reviewed science that disagree with you. Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, McIntyre to name but a few.

Thank you.

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

Based on the sources

December 28, 2008 - 19:53 ET by Giles Winterbourne

Based on the sources cited as evidence, yes, I do feel there is a lack of ability in critical analysis and expertise in the area. One reason I link to resources not generally posted here.
Since Standler made the editorial choice to not back up his assertions, I would tend to, as he notes, look somewhat askance at some of his conclusions.
He really doesn't have the credentials for inclusion if I were writing another article on resource evaluation tools. I did include him in this list since he used many good resources and hit the main points with fairly clear writing. On the downside, there is the editorializing and a certain amount of axe grinding going on.
Not sure what you're trying to say here; he uses the Berkeley Library page (or one similar) that I also provided a link for.
Some on your list haven't been peer-review published for awhile, or in areas related to climate. Also note that Standler ,"... expect(s) to find, somewhere in his/her website...his/her credentials..." This is corroborated with Berkeley and USM.
Standler points out that "(o)ne can easily distinguish scholarly writing from less credible forms of writing by the writing style...";then compare the writing in scientific journals and papers presented on-line only

1. Fact is. Many here do

December 28, 2008 - 20:33 ET by danbo

1. Fact is. Many here do follow critical thinking. Others just follow the herd of consensus. I see the flaws of AGW as many here. I'm an athiest. If I'll question god? What chance does Al Gore, Gavin Schmidt or Hansen have.

2 You cite a link that disagrees with you. I thought it was a fairly good article. He feels consensus isn't scientific. Therefore the source you once cited; you now say no longer has any credentials. I guess if they disagree, they're unimportant.And your credentials are?

3 Fact is the one link I read disagreed with you. Now he's unimportant. I question if the others agree with you.

4. Many of the people you put down and their websites provide the information he indicated. Therefore they're as valid as anyone else?

On the writing style we will disagree. In graduate school I saw well written research. But the research design and math were manure.

By contrast several sites. McIntyre's comes to mind. Are works in process. Freeflowing. They update often and invite feedback and even criticism. Only through openness and a willingness to be criticized can we find the truth. By contrast others never venture away from the edit key. And refuse to release their formulas or data.

I have more respect for typo ridden open science, to well written closed BS.

We disagree. As does at least one of your links and you.

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

Nope -

December 28, 2008 - 23:14 ET by Giles Winterbourne

I don't disagree with Standler; however I did point out that he makes some assertions (" Endorsement by authorities is more characteristic of religious dogma than scientific Truth." , "..many examples in history of science where new ideas were opposed by established experts,..", "..peer review is not a substitute for the reader taking the responsibility..") without providing examples and has an over reliance on the reader's being able to critically analyze without discussing importance of that reader's background and specific knowledgebase.

That said, he does use some of the same resources I've listed. A little research will show that the USM and Berkeley resources are fairly typical for HS and college level research evaluation criteria.

Crawfish! You're all over

December 29, 2008 - 07:34 ET by danbo

Crawfish!

You're all over the place. You cite a link. The link disagrees with you.

Therefore he's no longer a expert.

You also get caught up in the least important issue. Writing style. Henceforth great science will not be written by scientist. Who often couldn't care less about spelling or grammer. Rather it will be written by journalist and english majors who wouldn't understand R-squared if they tripped over it. And haven't a clue as to the problem of standard deviation or declaring .65 as very likely. But can write in a pretty style.

"Truth does not depend on the number of experts who endorse it. ... Endorsement by authorities is more characteristic of religious dogma than scientific Truth."

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

Your contention is that

December 28, 2008 - 15:57 ET by dscott

Your contention is that articles which aren't specifically listed as opinion pieces are factual. However, since nobody has yet been able to prove or disprove AGW beyond the shadow of a doubt, any article written on this subject is indeed expressing an opinion. The very nature of media bias is that articles presented to the public as factual are indeed skewed by the opinion of the author and therefore nonfactual. As a result, regardless of whether it's placed in the main section, science section, or opinion section of a paper or magazine, any article on the subject of AGW is INDEED opinion even if it presents data from scientists in the field.

With this in mind, can you provide data that support your contention that Noel is wrong about the American media's proclivity to present only one side of this debate? How many articles were published concerning AGW by major American publications this year? How many supported the AGW view, and how many refuted it? Despite the seeming irrelevance, if you want to break this down by articles in the main, science, and opinion sections, and what the associated numbers are regarding alarmism and realism, please do so. Then, we can ALL see what these numbers look like rather than just your opinion of what they are.

After all, you came into this thread claiming Noel was in error. It's YOUR job to prove him wrong by presenting the actual data that support your contention. Either do so or apologize for your insufferable arrogance.

We'll wait.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Nope -

December 28, 2008 - 18:07 ET by Giles Winterbourne

"Your contention is that articles which aren't specifically listed as opinion pieces are factual."

My point is that opinion and columnists are only opinion; not science-based articles. Specifically, frequently no

links or citations to verify accuracy
expertise in the area

Whereas, articles written in the science section tend to

be written by someone with a modicum of expertise
cite where data comes from
often point out information on both sides

So, looking at evaluating sources, one is risking making important decisions with poor choices of resources when relying on opinion, editorial, and columns for information

NS posited that there would be no US newspaper headlines like the
Telegraph opinion piece. I'm pointing out that there are plenty /
majority of US opinion pieces expressing the same opinion as that of
Booker's.

Actually, we could have talked about conflating news headlines with opinion article titles.

"since nobody has yet been able to prove or disprove AGW beyond the
shadow of a doubt, any article written on this subject is indeed
expressing an opinion" I expected better from you; you know that isn't how science works.

brief description of methodology on opinion: ProQuest National Newspapers Core

SECTION(editorial) OR SECTION(opinion) OR
SECTION(column) AND ENHAI(climate change) OR ENHAI(global warming) AND
(carbon dioxide) AND PDN(>1/1/2006)

SECTION(editorial) OR SECTION(opinion) OR
SECTION(column) AND ENHAI(climate change) OR ENHAI(global warming) AND
(consensus) AND PDN(>1/1/2006)

SECTION(editorial) OR SECTION(opinion) OR
SECTION(column) AND ENHAI(climate change) OR ENHAI(global warming) AND
(alarmist) AND PDN(>1/1/2006)

SECTION(editorial) OR SECTION(opinion) OR
SECTION(column) AND ENHAI(climate change) OR ENHAI(global warming) AND
(carbon dioxide) AND PDN(>1/1/2006)

I asked you to provide data

December 28, 2008 - 20:11 ET by dscott

I asked you to provide data that support your contention Noel is wrong about the American media's proclivity to present only one side of this debate. Are you going to do that or not? Enough with the theory behind your position. We understand your theory. Now, prove it with actual facts, or admit you misspoke.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Any one of those search strings

December 28, 2008 - 22:13 ET by Giles Winterbourne

will provide a plethora of opinion pieces seeking to prove that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't happening (using any of a variety of the skeptic tropes), will cost too much, or even be of a benefit.

Actually, one needs to realize that http://newsbusters.o... list is not a representative sample of newspaper editorials, opinions, and columns on global warming or climate change.

Also worth noting is from 2003 through 2006, there was a significantly larger percentage of US papers including non-consensus in articles than UK (3.3% to .4% in 2006) (http://www.eci.ox.ac...). Further discrediting the assumptions being made but not supported in the original article.

dscott et al

December 28, 2008 - 23:37 ET by Noel Sheppard

dscott et al,

There's a reason why I vowed quite some time ago not to respond to this troll's pathetic posts. This is a perfect example.

This cretin entered the thread making the claim, "Do a database search of national papers and you'll note that there is actually a majority of opinion / column pieces concurring with Booker."

Dscott asked him twice to support his contention with actual data concerning articles in 2008. Giles has refused to comply, instead referring to a piece about AGW articles in the UK and America between the years of 2003 and 2006. If you read this study, you will find that it actually quite supports NewsBusters' view of how biased the coverage actually is.

First off, readers should understand that the American articles came exclusively from NYT, LAT, USAT, WaPO, and WSJ. That's it. No other papers and no magazines. Furthermore, although there were a total of 2,543 articles found in those years, only 17 percent were analyzed, which means 83 percent WEREN'T. Interesting analysis, dontcha think?

Regardless, the findings quite prove exactly what we at NewsBusters have been saying for years (emphasis added):

The results from this analysis reveal a dramatic increase in the quantity of newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in both the UK and the US over the study period, but also an evolutionary shift in US newspaper coverage in 2005 from explicitly balanced’ accounts to reporting that more closely reflected the scientific consensus on attribution for climate change (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004; Carvalho 2005). [...]

This research finds that ‘balanced’ reporting on scientific investigations of human-induced climate change in these newspapers is no longer evident, and thus suggests that we may now be flogging a dead norm.

That's right: ‘balanced’ reporting on scientific investigations of human-induced climate change in these newspapers is no longer evident.

That's a far cry from the "majority of opinion / column pieces concurring with Booker" Giles said we'd find if we did his homework for him, dontcha think?

Of course, though irrelevant, Giles was making his case about opinion pieces and columns. BUT, according to this study, there hasn't been one article -- which would include opinion pieces and columns -- at the five US newspapers analyzed between 2004 and 2006 which depicted man-made contributions to global warming as negligible. NOT ONE in THREE years!!!

As such, his contention that "there is actually a majority of opinion / column pieces concurring with Booker" is 100 percent false according to the study HE cited!!!

And this is why I no longer bother engaging this thing, for he is a total waste of time and bandwidth. Any questions?

ROTFFLMFAO!!! ns

Nope

December 28, 2008 - 23:44 ET by Blonde

I knew if I waited long enough, I'd see a takedown of epic proportions.

Thanks, NS.....you never disappoint!

JJ

December 28, 2008 - 23:56 ET by Noel Sheppard

JJ,

When you consider how easy it is for the alarmists to brainwash a guy like this who clearly appears to be above-average in IQ, it makes it easy to understand why the masses believe this nonsense.

Of course, despite his IQ, this guy wasn't bright enough to recognize that the study he cited totally proves the point we've been making at NB for more than three years. Pretty funny, dontcha think? ns

Untruthful response, but to be expected

December 29, 2008 - 03:15 ET by Giles Winterbourne

Two points about the paper in question:

1. Read the methodology on the report. By selecting every 6th article from chronological order(17%) they have a representative sample to closely analyze. Normal process, just like a random selection for phone polling, reviewing medical treatments, etc. You would be looking for a large enough sample size to be statistically valid. By being randomly selected, researchers don't need to look at every piece. If you choose not to believe me, check with a uni research program. Unlike much of what passes for science in the contrarian camp, there are standardized methods and quality standards for research.

That the level of insult and snarkiness increases is just an indicator that you know that the emporor has no clothes.

2. They chose the newspapers in question based on clearly established criteria. One being their acknowledged influence on other papers. Adding a multitude of smaller papers would have increased the data needed to sift through to unmanageable levels.

Additionally:

dscott did not specifiy 2008.

I provided the search strings for your analysis. But if you want a statistic, try a range of 58-75% of the opinion and columns being pro-contrarian point of view. Depending on specific terms, date range, section of paper, etc.

Unless you don't own a library card, it is easy enough to verify with your own research.

NS wasn't discussing bias, but made an unprovable contention that there would be no coverage equivalent to the UK piece by Booker. He also conflates an opinion piece written by someone with no credibility with the US not writing a similar POV for a headline and story. Both the paper and a direct review of of the Proquest database belie the contention that US papers don't cover the contrarian opinion. In fact, the paper notes that even with declining levels of 'balance' sources noted in reporting, the US papers, at least through 2006, had a much higher representation of the contrarian view in their reporting.

So, rather than attempting to be snarky and feigning umbrage, it would be more responsible, mature, and intellectually honest to admit that the basic supposition of the post is untenable, un-researched, and poorly written.

Now, why would you consider using 'this thing' as a description? Unbelievably rude, to put it mildly. But, (and I know this will get me banned) totally expected from the denier camp.

Why Giles is confused

December 29, 2008 - 07:44 ET by PopularTech

Databases like Proquest only search 34 newspapers where Google News searches over 4500 news sources (online and in print).

Giles it is more like they pick and choose news sources based on elitist positions of what they consider to be a good source.

Oh it is so sad to see Giles desperately try to define sources to only those that support his far-left position.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Banned is to be expected

December 29, 2008 - 07:49 ET by danbo

Banned is to be expected from the denier camp? You mean like when I pointed out reality to Gavin Schmidt over at ReallyScaredClimatologist. He stated I was correct. Then I was banned.

You're still here after calling us a circle jerk.

It's the AGW that can't handle anyone who disagrees.

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

More misdirection? I

December 29, 2008 - 12:08 ET by dscott

More misdirection? I didn't specify dates but you did. And yet you still have not provided a straightforward answer, show us the data that says the MSM has provided balanced coverage of the AGW topic or at minimum show us the data that has the number of news stories favoring one side or the other. Failing that data your assertions regarding Noel's article are false.

We are not interested in typical liberal circular reasoning being offered by you. The agenda, the assertion and exclusion of all but the relevant facts to support the assertion. You want circular reasoning, go to a court of so called law. Nor are we interested in hearing about tangential issues because they are distractions from the central point. SHOW US THE DATA.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

noel -- you are quite

December 29, 2008 - 08:21 ET by Jack Bauer

noel -- you are quite correct not to usually respond to that tedious dolt.

He's the guy at Salem telling the mob to burn the witch because he's done a "peer" review of all the "evidence."

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

JB ;)

December 29, 2008 - 08:40 ET by choselife3x

http://newsbusters.o...

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

Don't take advice from the Computer Illiterate on Info Searching

December 29, 2008 - 07:40 ET by PopularTech

Anyone who has internet access has access to Google which is the most massive search database ever created, it dwarfs Proquest, Ebsco and any other private elitist source. You don't need to go to a library to get access to information. You get better non-biased information from your desktop computer.

It is getting absolutely ridiculous as the computer illiterate who constantly sources Wikipedia keeps trying to tell others how to search for information.

The Anti Wikipedia Resource

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution