ABC Reporter Mocks Global Warming 'Denialists,' Calls for More Alarmist Advocacy
ABC reporter and global warming enthusiast Bill Blakemore on Sunday condescendingly dismissed climate change skeptics as "denialists." In a piece on ABCNews.com, he called for yet more advocacy on the part of journalists.
After noting that confidence in the science of climate change has varied from year to year, Blakemore huffed that these beliefs "don't seem to be responding all that much, [Professor Jon Krosnick] says, to whatever the global warming denialist campaigns may have been doing."
Blakemore then lectured meteorologists for not being biased enough:
A number of America’s TV meteorologists and other broadcast weatherpersons have been accused by peer-reviewed climate scientists either of being greatly uninformed about the science of the basics of manmade global warming, or, at the very least, of shying away from any mention of it during broadcasts for fear of losing ratings by driving their audience away with worrisome news.
Instead, complain these scientists, U.S. TV weather journalists, feeling the need to provide some explanation for the unusual weather, often escape into a simplistic nearest-cause answer, blaming the extreme weather on “the jet stream,” while avoiding the science that connects the jet stream’s behavior to manmade global warming … as well as ignoring other larger global patterns that also project such extremes.
Of course, as a recent MRC analysis found out, this isn't true. ABC weatherman Sam Champion in 2008 wondered, "Could global warming one day force us into space to live?"
During another Champion segment in 2007, Good Morning America wondered if "billions" will die from global warming.
Is that "shying away" from global warming disaster talk?
Blakemore himself has a history of climate change alarmism:
"Life around the globe now appears to be under non-stop stress from the heat. NASA scientists say no natural climate cycles can explain it. The heat must be caused in large measure at least by greenhouse gas emissions.... NASA scientists now calculate, Robin, that the planet has at most ten years during which serious greenhouse gas emission cuts have to get well underway, or else by the time today's kids are reaching middle age, turning about 40, they say the Earth will start to experience temperatures higher than it has known in half a million years."
- ABC's Bill Blakemore, Good Morning America, Dec. 15, 2006.
"Many scientists say that it [the Western wildfires] fits exactly into the pattern predicted for global warming....[San Bernadino Fire Chief Mat Fratus] told me he also worries about how all the carbon from the fires only contributes to global warming. That fact about forest fires is something that Al Gore also points out in his new book, and that book is now near the top of the bestseller list. It seems that people are really starting to pay attention to global warming."
- ABC's Bill Blakemore, Good Morning America, June 20, 2006.
A previous Blakemore article from April 1st featured these leading headlines:
Global Warming Denialism ‘Just Foolishness,’ Scientist Peter Raven Says
U.S. prestige falling as world has ‘pretty well given up’ on any American leadership facing climate change.
Clearly, Blakemore is doing his part for climate change alarmism.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Always trying to invoke the holocaust in their speech
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 12:49pm.
somewhere to make it look like others are extreme for not believing them. Global alarmist are extreme and not too many of sound mind believe in global warming anymore. They're like the flat earth society at this point.
The real deniers
Submitted by deadeyedan on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 3:13pm.
There should never be any trouble handling the AGW denier label since the alarmists are Forces of Nature deniers.
Interesting to note that they often accuse us skeptics of cherry-picking when their chosen starting dates from which we are to measure are NECESSARILY cherry-picked and seem to be all over the place.
Notice also that no matter what starting point they choose there are dates farther back in time much warmer which never had human influence, and many dates (half a million years ago, to quote Blakemore) have had fluctuations of many degrees both ways (along with sea level fluctuation of plus/minus more than 300 feet).
Alarmists love to point out their "peer-review" status even though it was shown to be compromised in CLIMATEGATE revelations and even though there has never been any verification through double-blind experimentation.
The Forces of Nature deniers keep failing to inform the public that there is no magic temperature for earth but attempt to lead us to believe that there is one.
CLIMATEGATE (now I & II plus FAKEGATE) - the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution
But who are the "peers" doing the reviewing?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 3:38pm.
This is a common problem in an academically arcane area like climate science. All of the same "peers" are competing for research dollars in the same area, so they have a vested interest in seeing that the flow of money continues even if the science and the methods are contemptible by the standards of other related disciplines. Groupthink and mass delusion/hysteria are the same in climate scientists as they are in any other subpopulation in the general public.
When a theory becomes in vogue within a certain area of scientific inquiry, all of the other faculty and researchers competing for money suddenly become attuned to the "truth" or "consensus" of the theory, no matter how outlandish or unproven. It is a very simple human behavior to desire inclusion in a group, and particularly important when considering their financial and professional futures lie in their abilities to attract funding and publish/produce research, climate scientists have no special dispensation from human nature.
Exactly who are the peers? This is not peer
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 7:20pm.
reviewed and if it were then global warming may have some merit, but not as man-made. It's typical of the socialism crowd to adhere to the "peer reviewed" mantra but not outside of their own ideological bubble. I just got in argument about office politics among others in my organizational business class and these same "doctoral" candidates could not even respond to the question appropriately. They thought political behavior within an organization meant Barack Obama for some reason. No, it meant things like "social dilemmas" and people acting like "chameleons" within a workplace environment, yeesh. It's the same train of thought here and "groupthink" as you pointed out very well, nice analysis by the way from both of you:)
In the old days, peer-review
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 11:36pm.
In the old days, peer-review meant that your work was reviewed by other qualified scientists, i.e. your peers. It wasn't so much to declare your theory right or wrong, but to examine your work to see that it followed proper methodology, e.g. to make sure you didn't hide data that disputed your theory.
I think originally this allowed for other disciplines to assess your work as well. But as science has become more agenda oriented, there has been a shift to try to shut out review from other disciplines. Climate scientists try to limit discussion to other climate scientists. Anthropology and paleontology dismiss other discipline review. And so on. The results are fields of study where the research is homogenized and compliant with the current orthodoxy and disagreement is suppressed.
What we need to get back to is inter-disciplinary peer review, where one's alternate field of expertise is seen as an asset to discovery instead of a hindrance to another's ideology. Few of the true hard sciences fear attack from other disciplines but the subjective sciences circle the wagons because I think most of these scientists (especially climatologists) are afraid that someone in another field is going to put an indismissible knife in their theory.
Only in the Bizarro World of
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Tue, 04/24/2012 - 12:06am.
Only in the Bizarro World of Climate Science can a scientist (Michael Mann), who's research helped set a political agenda, be allowed to try to refuse to release his data for other scientists to corroborate. A complete refusal to allow peer review. (Oh yeah, his friends looked at it, that was his peer review). Not only that but other scientists and the media were backing him up in his refusal.
Only after he was forced to, by a FOI lawsuit, did he release his data. Not only was his data unsupported, it couldn't even be reproduced. Worse still was the media and academia's response to this deceit - nothing! No horror at a scientist cooking his books, no nothing! The Hockey Stick was quietly put under the rug and forgotten, except when Al Gore forgets it's been totally discredited.
As for Mike Mann, unlike any scientist in any other discipline who acted in such a non-professional, deceitful manner, is still happily a director at Penn State U. The media and liberal academia still treat him as a respectable scientist.
Bizarro, Bizarro.
"Oh yeah, his friends looked at it, that was his peer review"
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Tue, 04/24/2012 - 8:48am.
lol nice:)
The Buddy System
Submitted by dbo on Tue, 04/24/2012 - 11:49am.
This is exactly right. Even at journals like Nature it is commonly referred to as pal-review. Fortunately we have widespread documented evidence that it really is friends reviewing friends.
And Blakemore's
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 12:50pm.
response to scientists who oppose the AGW theories?
why, he denies they're scientists, of course.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
CLUELESS POMPOSITY - SOUNDS LIKE A WINNER FOR ABC NEWS
Submitted by Sgthulka on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 12:57pm.
Gasbaggery died with Ted Baxter and Ron burgundy.
It's a shame the memo has reached Blakemore's desk.
As I keep saying, when these
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:00pm.
As I keep saying, when these alarmists can explain why it was warmer 8oo years ago than anything seen since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, then I won't be a "denier" anymore.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
I'm of the same mind. But I
Submitted by Antisocial-ism on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 2:52pm.
I'm of the same mind. But I usually say Tell me what the temperature, humidity and barometric pressure is going to be (precisely!) in Kyoto, Japan on May 15th 2015. If you are spot on with that local forecast, maybe I'll start taking the 100 year GLOBAL projections a little more seriously.
The arrogance of man...
Submitted by MacWell on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:17pm.
to believe that his tiny footprint could in anyway interfere with God's creation, what gaul. I believe that sometimes people get too smart for their own good and start to believe the hype that's written about them in the (papers) they seem to endlessly pass around between each other, kind of like the Oscars.
I was taught by my father at an early age to be a conservationist, we didn't hunt, living in NJ, but we fished a lot. I was never permitted to leave any trash outdoors, never threw my garbage out the window of a car, or intentionally killed a tree for no good reason. Being for the environment doesn't mean one has to be in love with it. The forests, the oceans, the deserts, were given to us to utilize, not just to look at. Of course that doesn't give us license to destroy the earth, no one is claiming such a right.
What we MUST do this November is to remove all the people who believe that America needs to be "fundamentally transformed".
Then demand that the next Congress unleash business with an energy restriction moratorium until our national debt is fully paid off, all 17 trillion, which it'll be by then.
Then, we the people MUST retake our Congress by removing all the career politicians.
Congress was never intended to be anyone's career.
Congress was never intended to be run by all lawyers.
Think about it!
There is a brilliant book out
Submitted by HelenS on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:38pm.
There is a brilliant book out called "1491"
In it, the author talks about the whole "pristine wilderness" concept and basically said it is a myth. There never was an untouched perfect wilderness. It is an invention by the hyper-sentimental victorians and has nothing to do with history.
In fact, miles of prairie and even underbrush were regularly burned off to clear underbrush, promote lush grass growth and just plain carelessness I'm sure ;o)
A wonderful in-your-face read when he takes on the self-righteous, facts be damned, libs.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Also 1493
Submitted by creekrat on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 2:13pm.
Same author also wrote "1493" supposably north america AFTER Columbus. I read both recently and found them very interesting, but he does go a bit whacky at times.
I will have to look for "1493"
Submitted by HelenS on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 3:32pm.
Hadn't heard of that one yet but will go find it. Agreed - he can get a bit whacky but he has so much interesting information it's worth the read.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
I have a low tolerance for stupidity
Submitted by HelenS on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:19pm.
I have a low tolerance for stupidity on a good day but today I'm trying to function on three hours of sleep.
These slugs are living proof that when the lights are out, the lights are OUT and there ain't no bulb that will enlighten the gloom and echo of their brains.
How can they walk upright with such dysfunctional synapses!?
I NEED A NAP!
P.S. it was 40 degrees F this morning in DC. The high will probably be all of 48. But I guess that's just inconvenient data.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
I for one
Submitted by texastommy on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:24pm.
...accept that there is global warming, and global cooling, too. The earth has warmed and cooled many, many times over the millenia. We can measure such things with some accuracy.
I'm just not convinced that man's activities contribute to it to a measurable degree.
Someone explain to me how there can be large tree trunks under the ice sheet in Greenland. Must have been very, very warm there a few thousand years ago. How'd that happen?
Yeah, this is part of the
Submitted by DaChew on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:33pm.
Yeah, this is part of the "Forecast the Facts" campaign. Basically, the Center for American Progess, a Soros funded outfit has begun a campaign to try and pressure local weather forecasters into spouting the CAGW drivel or be called "Deniers" and smeared in public. You can read more about it at Wattsupwiththat: http://tinyurl.com/6w6skm8
If you read Blakemore's piece and the link above, you'll see that it tracks perfectly with the smear machine talking points.
Scammers
Submitted by mmilesll on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:42pm.
This idiot and algore are both scammers, but at least algore made millions off his scam, this moron just spreads bs
These global warmers are worse than fire ants
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:56pm.
You just can't get rid of them.
Question to the global warmers...
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 1:57pm.
What is the "just right" temperature?
JLin, That was a good question asked back in 2005. Not now.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 2:28pm.
However today the sea levels are DROPPING...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth/grace/earth20110823-640.jpg
Humm maybe it is locked in ice...The polar ice is building up on both poles.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
The warmists can keep tweaking the dials, and moving thermometers to fresh black-top areas....
To catch a little warm record.
While the ice builds up, and up.
You Didn't Build That.
Cut the alarmists some slack
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 2:04pm.
Cut the alarmists some slack LOL. They jumped on the bandwagon and now it's a matter of saving face. This is one of the bitterest topics I can debate with my GW friends. Every one of their arguments is falling apart and it's become clear to everyone that it's become a matter of faith. They aren't going to go down easy.
The amusing thing is that you'd think that people would be happy that it appears GW isn't going to destroy the world as they feared. But instead they're angry that mother nature hasn't cooperated with their smug predictions. Just goes to show that in a contest between truth and pride, pride will always win.
Mr Blakemore:
Submitted by BBallleaper on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 2:10pm.
I have heard your cry for action,...and have immediately responded. This morning I stole both your car and your wife's and drove them directly to a metal recycler. I had a 'warm glow' come over me as I watched them crushed into small metallic bits. Thank God we've recycled those pollution devices. I have also over-ridden your electronic heating and cooling systems. They have effectively been rendered useless. And your electricity has been cut-off permanently. You won't even need to buy new light bulbs! Please! No thanks necessary!! I just wanted to help in any way I could.
This is what happens
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 3:24pm.
When ideologs hijack science data to draw their own conclusion for political and economic reasons.
It is just as bad as a charletan who hijacks religion in order to make money, except that the religious charletan is still dependant upon the victim choosing to give him the money. In this scenario, the AGW charletans are attempting to hijack entire governments in order to force all citizens to contribute to their up-keep.
Science welcomes, even demands, dissent. AGW ideology shuns it and even tries to punish those who would dissent from it's core beliefs.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Climate changer deniers
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 3:44pm.
It's actually quite clever how climate change alarmists frame the argument, calling everyone who disagrees with them "global warming (or climate change) deniers."
I doubt there are very many, if any, rational people who actually deny that Earth's climate is changing. It's climate. It changes. That's what it does. It's been changing ever since the world was formed, and if all human life disappeared from the planet tomorrow, guess what? The Earth's climate would continue to change.
So-called deniers simply dispute that humans have any significant effect on that change, if at all. Big difference. But the alarmists can't acknowledge that because it destroys the premise of their demagoguery.
I have an alternate suggestion
Submitted by OhioHistorian on Mon, 04/23/2012 - 5:55pm.
I suggest that Federal employees who call global warming an issue on the par with slavery should be fired. Got that, Dr. Jim Hansen? Your job is SCIENCE, NOT POLICY. And you didn't have a lot to tell us about the firmness of the science in your testimony before Mr. Issa's committee, did you?
Thomas Alva Edison