
You get back in here!
NPR has just broadcast yet another story in support of global warming – the snows of this winter must have got our media and their science pals in a tizzy – they’re losing the war! A week or so ago, they were arguing that local weather isn’t evidence of climate change which of course is true but, after twenty years of charlatans like Al Gore blaming everything from earthquakes to hurricanes to tsunamis on global warming, they have obviously found that they’ve done their job too well and the public is convinced that snow outside the window must be evidence, one way or the other, of the state of the climate.
So they’ve gone back to the Al Gore technique, as NPR’s story demonstrates, and are trying to scare us all back into the fold of “settled science”. Frankly, I think the sheep have escaped.
Away from the U.S., the media is beginning to tell the truth, like this article quoting the British father of global warming admitting that there’s been no warming since 1995. But not so here. As this blogger asks, “If the tree of global warming fell in the American Press’s living rooms, would it make a sound?” Not so far.
UPDATE: WaPo has now mentioned the topic, defensively. But not The New York Times:
I am not sure how long the reputation of a great newspaper can withstand the consequences of this kind of news judgment; the steady (and to me, painful and unwelcome) erosion of the Times‘ influence and prestige is unlikely to end until its pages regain the reputation as the first, best place to learn about the vital events of the day. At some point, the Times will simply have to break down and let its readers in on the Climategate story. When that happens, it will be interesting to see how it explains why it chose not to inform its readers, many of whom care passionately about this issue, of a series of vital developments unfolding one after the other on a matter of great concern. Was the newspaper so blinded by entrenched bias and assumptions that it was simply unable to see what was news? Or did pro-environmentalist staffers actively work to block the paper’s ability to cover a major news story because they didn’t think publication would benefit an agenda they held was of enormous global importance?