I brought this up this past Friday (Giant “man-made global warming” conspiracy and coverup possibly afoot) but so far, no lamestream media has joined me, unless it was solely to discredit it. Once again, for the 18,745th time, proving that they are misleading you by an omission of facts, to serve their liberal-left agendas.
By Noel Sheppard
November 24, 2009 – 11:03 ET
The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
Despite last Friday morning’s bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists—many with direct ties to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama administration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
* ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
* ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
* CBS “Evening News” Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
* CBS “Evening News” Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie “New Moon”
* CBS “Evening News” Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
* NBC “Nightly News” Friday reported on Switzerland’s supercollider being turned back on
* NBC “Nightly News” Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
* NBC “Nightly News” Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle’s CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
It’s not that these aren’t valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
Also consider that the news divisions of ABC, CBS, and NBC broadcast many hours during the day besides their evening programs, and LexisNexis identified no ClimateGate reports in those either (through Monday).
As for CNN, it has been broadcasting for almost 100 straight hours since this story broke, and it appears the so-called “Most Respected Name In News” has yet to devote one second to this scandal.
By contrast, Fox News did at least four reports on this subject on Monday alone. …
· And here’s an almost endless list of the emails in question, which the media refuses to look at and more importantly, refuse to report to you.
Fox News Channel’s co-motto is “We report, you decide”. Apparently the rest of the media’s motto is, “What you don’t know can’t hurt, um, us and our left-wing world view”. Or, “We decide what to report, oh and also tell you how to think based on half the story or none of it at all, and then you decide based on your utter lack of information and all the facts, and then we poll you to find out if you’re buying our left-wing spin, and if you aren’t, then we try harder to fake you out and drive our agendas further up your arse”.
And this is why watching the likes of the CBC actually makes you stupider by the second.
Nearly alone as usual in more fully reporting and discussing the matter in the mainstream print media, is the venerable Wall Street Journal:
Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming “consensus.”
By JAMES TARANTO
“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.
The files — which can be downloaded here — surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .
Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.
This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate—to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?
It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press’s contention that global warmism is settled science—a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument,” the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that “few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate,” and that “nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal.” (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC’s conclusions.)
The press’s view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a “consensus” based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.