It has been regularly reported by NewsBusters that media are doing everything in their power to withhold from the public the financial ramifications of global warming alarmism.
Be it the marketing of totally useless carbon offsets, or proposals for additional taxes on consumers and corporations, press outlets have been seemingly coordinated in their silence regarding such matters.
Another fine example of such a boycott occurred last week when House Energy and Commerce Committee chair John Dingell (D-MI) discussed a rather elaborate tax plan with the Associated Press Wednesday that virtually no major media outlet outside of Detroit bothered to report (emphasis added throughout):
One of the most disgraceful assertions from global warming alarmists such as soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore is that a scientific consensus exists concerning man's role in climate change.
Of course, skeptics around the world accurately counter that science isn't accomplished by a show of hands, and that until it can be proven that man is indeed responsible for the slight increase in global average temperatures in the past 100 years, the percentage of people who "feel" that way is totally irrelevant.
With that in mind, a new study published Wednesday in the journal Nature (subscription required) tears apart the "scientific consensus" regarding the cause of a hole in the ozone layer, and should act as a warning to folks claiming that the climate change debate is over, assuming of course the media pay any attention to this paper.
For those interested in science rather than consensus-driven hypotheses, here were some of the paper's astounding findings a global warming obsessed press are guaranteed to withhold from the public (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):
As NewsBuster Jake Gontesky reported, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily Monday claimed one of billionaire leftist George Soros's foundations gave $720,000 in 2006 to the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen.
Since this editorial was published, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one major media outlet has reported these allegations.
Maybe even more shocking is that had press outlets looked into this matter - you know, acted like journalists instead of advocates! - they would have found Hansen's name prominently mentioned in the 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report (relevant section on page 123):
Assume for a moment that one of the world's leading oil companies was identified to be using child laborers in various countries in order to cut payroll costs. Do you think that would be front page, headline news in the States?
Well, it appears that the carbon offset scam, devised largely to assuage the environmental guilt of wealthy people, is resulting in the exploitation of children in India. Yet, it seems a metaphysical certitude that global warming obsessed media won't bat an eye.
Why might that be?
As reported in Britain's Sunday Times (emphasis added, h/t Marc Morano):
NewsBusters readers are aware that one of my contentions concerning global warming alarmism is that those involved are doing it for the money.
Well, this editorial from the Olympian in Washington state will give you an idea that it's not just folks like Al Gore, Laurie David, and carbon offset marketers that are cashing in on this scam.
Now, media members are getting into the act as well.
Entitled "Climate Change Event Mishandled," the editorial deliciously complained about the Olympia, Washington, City Council paying a speaking fee to Andrew Revkin of the New York Times (emphasis added):
Scientists from all over the world are coming out strongly against an inexcusably hysterical article recently published by the planet's leading wire service.
As NewsBusters reported Saturday, the Associated Press published an unbelievably disgraceful article about global warming induced sea level rises supposedly destined to wipe out large amounts of American coastal communities in the next 100 years.
The political battle over climate change has clearly taken a dramatic turn for the worse this month, for it now seems media are actually competing to see which outlet can present the most hysterical report concerning imminent planetary doom at the hands of manmade global warming.
*****Critical updates at end of post.
After ABC News published a disgraceful photo essay featuring computer generated pictures of drowned American cities at its website last Friday, followed by NBC News reporting Monday that Greenland's ice sheets are melting so quickly that it "could ignite worldwide disaster," the Associated Press on Saturday cautioned that "In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased."
Seems almost like they're playing a game of "Can You Top This" doesn't it?
Sadly, as demonstrated by some of the following lowlights from this truly irresponsible piece of detritus, media are clearly putting on a full-court press to scare Americans into believing the world will quickly come to an end if we don't start doing exactly what soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore tells us (emphasis added throughout):
There's a marvelous law in Great Britain prohibiting the "promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school" that is about to be tested by a lorry driver trying to prevent Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" from being forced on English children.
Why hasn't someone in America done the same thing?
While you ponder, it was reported in Thursday's Telegraph (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):
A new study that will appear in Thursday's journal Nature revealed that methane being released from bogs in what is now Great Britain likely contributed to global warming 55 million years ago.
Maybe more importantly, when you add up the methane being released from wetlands around the world, it could completely counteract all the carbon dioxide emissions reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol.
Of course, such findings are likely not going to be entered into the current climate change debate, for media will totally ignore this study as they do all reports that go counter to the global warming agenda.
Regardless, as reported by National Geographic Wednesday (emphasis added throughout):
This seems destined to be ignored by today's climate change obsessed media: Scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies - the very organization now presaging gloom and doom at the hands of global warming - predicted a new ice age back in 1971.
Think this will be a focus of tonight's evening news broadcasts?
Regardless of the answer, the Washington Times wonderfully reported Wednesday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):
Warning: The following report is guaranteed to elicit uncontrollable bouts of laughter that could be hazardous to your computer if you are currently eating or drinking. Fair and final warning.
The Global Warmingist-in-Chief, Emmy award-winning schlockumentarist and fear monger Al Gore, is currently touring Australia to drum up climate change hysteria while certainly padding his wallet and emitting more carbon dioxide on the trip and during speeches than most people do in a year.
Yet, even more delicious, Australia's Liberal Party has banned all of its members from attending any of Gore's events.
I kid you not.
As reported by Live News Wednesday (emphasis added to hopefully enhance the comedic experience):
The media's global warming hysteria is clearly becoming unhinged.
First, ABC News published a photo essay at its website Friday prominently displaying computer generated images of U.S. cities drowned by climate change raised seas.
Then, on Monday's "Nightly News," NBC's environmental correspondent Anne Thompson, reporting from Greenland, cautioned viewers that the "summer thaw, picking up dangerous speed 300 miles north of the Arctic Circle...could ignite worldwide disaster."
How pleasant, wouldn't you agree? I sincerely hope few Americans were watching this abomination while they were eating dinner. After all, Thompson ominously began her report (video available here, h/t Marc Morano):
A landmark decision concerning car companies and global warming was handed down by a federal judge in California on Monday. Yet, most people are likely not going to hear about it, because the ruling goes counter to the media's agenda.
As reported by the Associated Press (emphasis added throughout): "District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco handed California Attorney General Jerry Brown's environmental crusade a stinging rebuke when he ruled that it [sic] impossible to determine to what extent automakers are responsible for global-warming damages in California."
How delicious. But, there was much more about this decision the press will likely keep from people outside of California:
Since NASA's James Hansen finally released computer codes related to how climate data are collected and adjusted, anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the world have been waiting to see what a scientific examination of this information would produce.
On Monday, Canada's Steve McIntyre, who himself debunked Michael Mann's ridiculous "Hockey Stick" theory as well as identified Hansen's Y2K bug, released information identifying that Hansen recently made additional changes to climate data akin to how companies like Enron used creative accounting to exaggerate earnings and defraud investors.
Here's something you don't see every day: a liberal publication blaming actress Jane Fonda for anything bad.
Yet, although not written by New York Times staffers, the idea that its Sunday magazine would even consider publishing an article blaming Fonda's 1979 movie "The China Syndrome" for global warming is quite shocking.
Authored by "Freakonomics" writers Stephen J. Dubiner and Steven D. Levitt, "The Jane Fonda Effect" stated quite adroitly what many climate change skeptics have been saying for years (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):
As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, wheat prices soared last week to their highest levels in history.
As many consumer products are made from this grain, and media love to carp and whine about inflation, one would have expected great focus to be given to this issue.
However, as some of the upward pressure on wheat prices is directly attributable to biofuels, a global warming obsessed media seemed concerned to address this inflationary issue for fear that it would bring negative attention on soon-to-be-to-Dr. Al Gore's beloved ethanol.
Bucking the wheat boycott trend was the Washington Post which published a very balanced article on this subject Saturday (emphasis added throughout):
It certainly shouldn't come as a great surprise that there are people who think human beings are the worst species on the planet, and that Earth would be a much better place without us.
However, though Slate's Daniel Engber did add some skepticism to his "Global Swarming: Is it time for Americans to start cutting our baby emissions?" article, his conclusion made it quite clear his answer to this question was "Yes":
We know that babies add more to global warming than anything else in our home. Isn't it time to cut back?
For those with a strong stomach, here are some of the lowlights (emphasis added throughout, h/t Ken Shepherd):
When climate change activists Sheryl Crow and Laurie David went on their "Stop Global Warming College Tour" last spring, media sycophants followed their every move reporting their exploits on almost a daily basis.
With that in mind, if a serious, scientific error were discovered in the global warming children's book co-authored by David, shouldn't that be newsworthy as well?
As you ponder, Robert Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute published his findings Thursday concerning a material error in "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming" which media seem destined to ignore for the benefit of the climate change movement (emphasis added throughout):
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) might not be familiar to many, but its reports and analyses are used by nations across the globe to set policy.
Unfortunately, American media only cover papers and announcements from this organization when its findings support a liberal agenda.
For instance, when the OECD presented its new paper, "Biofuels: Is the Curse Worse Than the Disease?" at Tuesday's Paris meeting, American media ignored it, likely due to conclusions which go counter to soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore's views concerning the need to expand ethanol usage in order to solve manmade global warming.
As the Financial Times reported Monday, the OECD believes "the current rush to support alternative energy sources will lead to surging food prices and the potential destruction of natural habitats" (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):
Here's something you don't see every day: an article at the New York Times skeptical about imminent planetary doom at the hands of manmade global warming.
Maybe it's a spoof.
Whether satirical in nature or not, John Tierney's "‘Feel Good' vs. ‘Do Good' on Climate" should be must-reading for liberals around the country who need a little sanity from a source they trust to offset the alarmism they're receiving from other outlets they also hold in undeserved esteem (h/t Glenn Reynolds, emphasis added throughout):
By now, most conservatives have likely seen or heard about the video Fox News's Sean Hannity aired on Sunday's "Hannity's America" wherein the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, was seen getting off a private, fuel inefficient jet at San Francisco Airport before stepping into a non-hybrid, Lincoln Town Car.
This raises a question: Should we expect to see this video on CNN and MSNBC all day Monday, as well as on the morning and evening news programs of ABC, NBC, and CBS?
On the one hand, I was very pleased to see CNN's Howard Kurtz mention on Sunday's "Reliable Sources" the recent decision by the BBC to cancel "Planet Earth," a proposed daylong special to focus attention on anthropogenic global warming.
On the other hand, I was surprised when Kurtz chose not to include one of the key reasons this project was scrapped, namely, the failure of Al Gore's Live Earth concerts.
For several years as the manmade global warming myth has taken center stage, the media have led people to believe that reports published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were written by thousands of scientists around the world all sharing a consensus view regarding this controversial issue.
In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
On Thursday, climate data analyst John McLean wrote a fabulous analysis of the most recent IPCC Assessment Report released in April, and in so doing, obliterated many of the press assertions that have become prominent fixtures in climate change lore.
Published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, this paper should be must reading for all media members and global warming alarmists. It began with a rather harsh review of the important Summary for Policy Makers (emphasis added throughout):
In the past couple of days, the media have reported "grim" melting of ice in the Arctic while disgracefully ignoring the history of the region prior to 1979 and explorations of the area as far back as 1903.
As the Washington Post reported Friday (emphasis added):
The Arctic ice cap is melting faster than scientists had expected and will shrink 40 percent by 2050 in most regions, with grim consequences for polar bears, walruses and other marine animals, according to government researchers.
Unfortunately, like the Post, most press outlets conveniently ignored a crucial element of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration study being cited. As reported by the Seattle Times Friday (emphasis added):
Much as when the organization he leads quietly made changes to the United States historical climate record at the prodding of Climate Audit's Stephen McIntyre, James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies finally released critical computer codes scientists have wanted for years, but did so with absolutely no official press release.
As a result, not one media outlet covered this occurrence that years from now could be seen as a huge turning point in the climate change debate.
Despite the secrecy, there was great celebration amongst anthropogenic global warming skeptics that have wanted these closely held codes to be able to identify how NASA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration make adjustments to raw climate data collected by weather stations.
One such skeptic is Anthony Watts, who happily reported Saturday (emphasis added):
While media carped and whined about the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina devastating New Orleans, a judge in Gulfport, Mississippi, ruled on a lawsuit filed against oil, coal, and electric utility companies that could have significant implications on future litigation involving greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Unfortunately, from what I can tell, not one press outlet found the judge's decision at all newsworthy. Not one!
To set this up, NewsBusters reported on August 15 a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of a number of Mississippians claiming that the greenhouse gas emissions of a very long list of companies doing business in the Gulf exacerbated the strength of Hurricane Katrina thereby making them responsible for the citizens' financial losses.
On Friday, LexisNexis Mealey's Legal News reported (very grateful h/t NBer Par for the Course):