Climate change and misinformation; More Bulls**t from the Press-titutes

The big three American networks – CNN, Fox News and MSNBC – have been put under the magnifying glass of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Climate change and Misinformation : This is the effect of the study released by the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists ) on the communication of climate change in three major American networks . ” Science or misinformation ? ” Headlines the research, which puts it under a magnifying glass CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, the cable tv channels most watched in the United States . Authoritative sources of information for the public, but also for policy makers .
To find the accuracy with which information on climate change has been transmitted , the UCS analyzed the media coverage of the issue in 2013 , noting substantial differences between the three broadcasters. The methodology used to conduct the survey was quite severe : the information segments (programs) that contained some inaccuracies were classified as misleading.

Fox News is finished in last place : 72% of climate information conveyed by the issuer, according to the expert group contained incorrect statements . The UCS considered reliable only 14 out of 50 posts during the year. MSNBC , in contrast, was the most accurate , with a percentage of misinformation of only 8 % . Furthermore , the number of programs transmitted by the network was more than twice : well 132 segments , of which only 11 are considered misleading . The few mistakes of MSNBC are linked to exaggerations of the guests about the relationship between extreme weather events ( tornadoes, floods) and climate change.

CNN stood in the middle , with 30% of the inaccuracy of 43 programs aired . However, the communication network has been considered quite realistic. It was considered ” misleading ” its pluralism , that is, the tendency to invite in the debates even the deniers . Researchers have suggested to CNN , to increase the accuracy of change point of view : ” Rather than focus the debates about the existence or otherwise of climate change, it would be better to give it for granted and to focus on possible solutions transmissions . The public needs information that expresses the correct scientific positions . The media system can do better to issue a statement based on facts. If you are talking about climate change in these terms, it would also be easier to stimulate policies to tackle it . “

The Climate Change , oops sorry The Global Warming/Mongering as we know


OMG! We’re all gonna die!

A major U.S. government global warming report due out this week predicts that sea levels could rise as high nearly seven feet by the end of this century, imperiling millions of Americans who live within feet of high-tide levels.

Government scientists say that the rate of sea level rise has doubled since 1992 and is projected to “rise by another 1 to 4 feet in this century.” But this is only the lower end of how much sea levels could rise.

“A wider range of scenarios, ranging from 8 inches to 6.6 feet of rise by 2100, has been suggested for use in risk-based analyses,” according to the Obama administration’s National Climate Assessment (NCA).

“In the U.S., millions of people and many of the nation’s assets related to military readiness, energy, transportation, commerce, and ecosystems are located in areas at risk of coastal flooding because of sea level rise and storm surge,” the NCA said.

Rising sea levels are only some of the problems the NCA warns will come from man-made global warming. Other dangers from a warming world include increasing droughts, storms, floods and tornadoes.

But NCA says that sea level rises pose a special risk because the “U.S. population growth has been greatest in coastal zones and in the arid Southwest, areas that already have been affected by increased risks from climate change.”

“After at least two thousand years of little change, sea level rose by roughly 8 inches over the last century, and satellite data provide evidence that the rate of rise over the past 20 years has roughly doubled,” the NCA continued.

“In the U.S., millions of people and many of the nation’s assets related to military readiness, energy, transportation, commerce, and ecosystems are located in areas at risk of coastal flooding because of sea level rise and storm surge,” the NCA added.

This frightening future can be averted, says the NCA, if mankind phases out its use of fossil fuels — which make up almost 90 percent of the world’s energy needs. In the U.S., more than 80 percent of power is generated by fossil fuels.

NCA’s claim about rising sea levels, however, runs counter to emerging data on the topic. First, satellite data compiled by the University of Colorado shows that sea levels have not been rising faster in the last two decades. While local sea levels may have risen faster or even fallen, there has been no overall acceleration of sea level rises.

“We now have satellite measurements for 20 years which indicate a steady rise of about 3 mm per year, and during that time no acceleration,” said Lennart Bengtsson, a senior research fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, on the Swedish blog Stockholms Initiativet.

“However, it is important to be clear that this is an average and that there were considerable local variations related to tectonic changes, among others, after the last ice age,” Bengtsson added. “The isostatic adjustment that needs to be done in order to obtain useful data are being evaluated by the experts now. As you can see from the graph, it is clear that we need a relatively long time to obtain a realistic trend, but 20 years is certainly enough.”

Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change data, which NCA draws from, shows there has been no acceleration in rising sea levels.

“It is very likely that the mean rate was [1.7 millimeters per year] between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of [0.19 meters],” according to the IPCC’s latest assessment. “Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at [3.2 millimeters per year]; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1930 and 1950.”

“It is likely that global mean sea level has accelerated since the early 1900s, with estimates ranging from 0.000 to 0.013 [millimeters per year],” IPCC added.

Second, some scientists have even suggested there is no relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and sea levels. NCA argues that CO2 heats the ocean and causes sea levels to rise, but a study published in the Journal of Geodesy last year found that sea levels have not risen any faster.

The study found that the sea level has only risen by 1.7 millimeters per year over the last 110 years, all while carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have risen by a third. This suggests that rising carbon concentrations have not impacted the rate at which sea levels are rising.

“For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions,” said Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. ”The Earth’s rate of rotation records a mean acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.”
Even though the nation’s average temperature has risen by as much as 1.9 degrees since record keeping began in 1895, it’s in the big, wild weather where the average person feels climate change the most, said co-author Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University climate scientist.

Extreme weather like droughts, storms and heat waves hit us in the pocketbooks and can be seen by our own eyes, she said. And it’s happening a lot more often lately. The report says the intensity, frequency and duration of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes have increased since the early 1980s, but it is still uncertain how much of that is from man-made warming. Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity and shifted northward since the 1950s, it says.

Also, heavy downpours are increasing – by 71 percent in the Northeast. Heat waves, such as those in Texas in 2011 and the Midwest in 2012, are projected to intensify nationwide. Droughts in the Southwest are expected to get stronger. Sea level has risen 8 inches since 1880 and is projected to rise between 1 foot and 4 feet by 2100.
The political viability of climate change denial gets more preposterous by the day, which is not to say that it doesn’t remain effective. We are gradually coming to a consensus of denial in which we see the effects of climate change as a series of random phenomena, to be studied individually, but never to be linked effectively enough to require national action.

The report also says “climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways.” Those include smoke-filled air from more wildfires, smoggy air from pollution, more diseases from tainted food, water, mosquitoes and ticks. And then there’s more pollen because of warming weather and the effects of carbon dioxide on plants. Ragweed pollen season has lengthened by 24 days in the Minnesota-North Dakota region between 1995 and 2011, the report says. In other parts of the Midwest, the pollen season has gotten longer by anywhere from 11 days to 20 days.
Watch your evening news. I will guarantee you that, some time this summer, you will see EyeCenter News 15 do a story on what a terrible season this is for allergy sufferers, complete with citizens’ sneezing on camera. I will be amazed if the news story mentions this report at all. Luckily, though, Tiger Beat On The Potomac has its eye on what’s really important — how the president will sell the science. And, of course, experts disagree.

And a decided few skeptics have been particularly outspoken. For instance, John Coleman, the now-retired founder of the Weather Channel, has called global warming “the greatest scam in history.” One explanation Seitter has been hearing privately – and which more than one meteorologist also shared with POLITICO – is skepticism over climate modeling that tries to predict changes decades down the road. At least mathematically, these models aren’t much different from the modeling that TV meteorologists use to forecast weather mere days in advance, which often can prove challenging to do accurately.

“They know their own models become unreliable very quickly, and it makes it hard for them to become comfortable with a lot of the climate modeling being used to forecast many years rather than just a handful of days,” Seitter said. Climate researchers counter that climate – which changes over decades and centuries – is much different from day-to-day weather.
“Counter”? It is an undeniable fact that climate is “different from day-to-day weather.” That’s not a proposition worthy of serious debate.

Those of us who have chronicled the global warming hoax, now called “climate change”, know that it is based on decades of lies about carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” with predictions that the Earth will heat up and cause massive problems unless those emissions are drastically reduced by not using coal, oil and natural gas.

Two American think tanks, The Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) have been among those exposing those lies for years. The lies have been generated and led by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Despite the panel’s insistence that the Earth is getting hotter, five different datasets show that there have been no observable warming for 17 and a half years even as carbon dioxide levels have risen 12%,” notes Christopher Monckton, a science advisor to Britain’s former Prime Minister Thatcher. “The discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to grow.”

Recently, two Chinese assistant professors of economics, Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, were published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Their paper, “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, openly advocated lying about global warming/climate change in order to get nations to sign on to the International Environmental Agreement.

“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations,” they noted, “have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

Craig Rucker, CFACT’s Executive Director, responded to the Chinese authors saying “They’re shameless.” Theirs and others ends-justify-the-means tactics reflects the attitudes and actions of environmental organizations and serves as a warning to never accept anything they say on any aspect of this huge hoax.

CFACT’s President and co-founder, David Rothbard, noted that “Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change.” How long? Back in 1989, the late Stanford University professor, Stephen Schneider, said, “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

There is no “right balance” between telling lies and telling the truth when it comes to science or any other aspect of our lives. Suffice to say that thousands of scientists who participated in the IPCC reports over the years supported the lies, but many have since left and some have openly denounced the reports.

As the latest IPCC summary of its report has garnered the usual verbatim media coverage of its outlandish predictions, The Heartland Institute has released its own 1,062 page report from the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) called “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. An 18-page summery is available at

Among its findings:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life.

A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events.

Based on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report is free of the lies that are found in the IPCC report whose studies have been, at best, dubious, and at worst, deliberately deceptive.

In light of the natural cooling cycle the Earth has been in that is good news and it will be even better news when the planet emerges from the cycle that reflects the lower levels of radiation from the Sun.

On March 31, CNS News reported that “The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report estimates it will cost developed nations an additional $100 billion each year to help poorer nations adapt to the devastating effects of ‘unequivocal’ global warming, including food shortages, infrastructure breakdown, and civil violence. But that figure was deleted from the report’s executive summary after industrial nations, including the United States, objected to the high price tag.”

The price tag reveals the IPCC’s real agenda, the transfer of funds from industrial nations to those less developed. It’s about the money and always has been. It’s not global warming the planet needs to survive, it is the costly lies about it.

Global Warming Scare Tactics; How to sell Climate Change


If you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for “Years of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.”

Showtime’s producers undoubtedly have the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level rise to decreasing agricultural output.

But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization.

For instance, Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” (total Bulls**t) popularized the idea that today’s natural disasters are increasing in severity and frequency because of human-caused global warming. It also contributed to public backlash and division. Since 2006, the number of Americans telling Gallup that the media was exaggerating global warming grew to 42 percent today from about 34 percent. Meanwhile, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on whether global warming is caused by humans rose to 42 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

Other factors contributed. Some conservatives and fossil-fuel interests questioned the link between carbon emissions and global warming. And beginning in 2007, as the country was falling into recession, public support for environmental protection declined.

Still, environmental groups have known since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could backfire, after researchers at the Frameworks Institute studied public attitudes for its report “How to Talk About Global Warming.” Messages focused on extreme weather events, they found, made many Americans more likely to view climate change as an act of God — something to be weathered, not prevented.

Some people, the report noted, “are likely to buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come” for example, rather than support fuel-efficiency standards.

Since then, evidence that a fear-based approach backfires has grown stronger. A frequently cited 2009 study in the journal Science Communication summed up the scholarly consensus. “Although shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people’s attention and concern,” the researchers wrote, “they clearly do not motivate a sense of personal engagement with the issue and indeed may act to trigger barriers to engagement such as denial.” In a controlled laboratory experiment published in Psychological Science in 2010, researchers were able to use “dire messages” about global warming to increase skepticism about the problem.

Many climate advocates ignore these findings, arguing that they have an obligation to convey the alarming facts.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story

But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can’t be supported by the science. Our warming world is, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increasing heat waves and intense precipitation in some places, and is likely to bring more extreme weather in the future. But the panel also said there is little evidence that this warming is increasing the loss of life or the economic costs of natural disasters. “Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration,” the climate panel noted, “is the most important driver of increasing losses.”

Continue reading the main story

jack farrell 4 days ago
Standard of comfort and $tandard of living are not the same thing. Countries with 1/3 American GDP are living comfortably because they are…
Terry Has 4 days ago
The question is not whether predictions of future climate conditions are effective in engendering change. The question is, whether it…
Rkarl 4 days ago
2013 has shown the true colors of the left’s false narrative on global warming. Both poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking…
Claims that current disasters are connected to climate change do seem to motivate many liberals to support action. But they alienate conservatives in roughly equal measure.

What works, say environmental pollsters and researchers, is focusing on popular solutions. Climate advocates often do this, arguing that solar and wind can reduce emissions while strengthening the economy. But when renewable energy technologies are offered as solutions to the exclusion of other low-carbon alternatives, they polarize rather than unite.

One recent study, published by Yale Law School’s Cultural Cognition Project, found that conservatives become less skeptical about global warming if they first read articles suggesting nuclear energy or geoengineering as solutions. Another study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that “communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society” rather than “on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.”

Nonetheless, virtually every major national environmental organization continues to reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote them an open letter last fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate solution. Together with catastrophic rhetoric, the rejection of technologies like nuclear and natural gas by environmental groups is most likely feeding the perception among many that climate change is being exaggerated. After all, if climate change is a planetary emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?

While the urgency that motivates exaggerated claims is understandable, turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy will better serve efforts to slow global warming.

Geoengineering, Runaway Climate Change, And The Poisoning Of Life On Earth

By: Dane Wigington

More major publications are trying to “condition” the population to the idea of “geoengineering” as a cure for the increasingly extreme climate. It is ever more shocking that publications like “Foreign Affairs” can still pretend they don’t know SRM (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) has been a lethal reality for decades.

Continue reading