Det råder “consensus” om Global Warming – IGEN! Eller hur kritiken mot Global Warming censureras

Att journalister och massmedia för länge sedan har övergivit sin journalistiska roll och blivit propagandister när det gäller Global Warming hysterin är ju inget nytt. Det är ju bara att läsa tidningarna varje dag och se på tv nyheterna, ”debatt” program och s.k. ”fakta” program för att få det bekräftat.

Tyvärr är det bara att konstatera att ensidigheten är chockerande total (i den meningen att man INTE tar sitt journalistiska värv på allvar) och att massmedia anslutit sig till den medeltida inkvisitionen ledd av IPCC, Al Gore et consortes.

Och blivit His Masters Voice där man tilldelats rollen som bandhund för att lydigt föra ut mantrat att ”Debatten är över och det finns inget att diskutera”, att det ”är omoraliskt att ens ifrågasätta det hela” etc. En i SANNING MYCKET MÄRKLIG INSTÄLLNING för en journalistJournalister har alltså LYDIGT tagit på sig rollen att stävja, stoppa och trycka ner kritik och debatt i en mycket viktig fråga.

Ledmotivet verkar ju vara att här skall ingen dj.. med ”kritiska” uppfattningar släppas över tröskeln.

Här kommer därför två intressanta studier på samma tema från The Business & Media Institute (den ena från 2008 den andra från 2006) där man har analyserat amerikanska massmedias rapportering om klimat frågorna och Global Warming.

Och även om ensidigheten är mycket stor i den amerikanska rapporteringen så är det INGENTING jämfört med i Sverige. I USA så FINNS DET journalister och tidningar/TV som försöker rapportera och ge en allsidig/kritisk bild av Global Warming Hysterin.

I Sverige så är tyvärr ensidigheten TOTAL och öronbedövande. Till stor skam för den svenska journalistkåren!

I den äldre studien (Fire and Ice) från 2006 beskrivs hur massmedia under de senaste 100 åren i olika omgångar har rapporterat om snar klimatkatastrof (”climate doom”).  Fast olika ”varianter”.

Två gånger har man larma om en förestående Istid.  Två gånger har man larmat om Global Warming.

New York Times 1895: ”Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

New York Times 1933: ”the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

New York Times 1975: ”A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

New York Times 1981: ”global warming of an ”almost unprecedented magnitude.”

VISST ÄR DET SKÖNT ATT DEBATTEN ÄR ÖVER OCH ATT DET RÅDER ”CONSENUS” OM GLOBAL WARMING  – IGEN!

Några resultat från studierna:

The Business & Media Institute analyserade 205 network news stories about ”global warming” or ”climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. I 80 % av inslagen så nämnde man ÖVERHUVUDTAGET INTE att det finns olika åsikter i denna fråga

Några citat:                                                            

– ”Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.”

– ”Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)”

– ”All ”solutions” have a price, but the cost of fighting global warming was something you rarely heard on the network news. Only 22 stories (11 percent) mentioned any cost of ”fixing” global warming.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

”Another NBC reporter, Kerry Sanders, hyped the threat of warming to polar bears and walruses on Dec. 9, 2007, ”a world scientists say may melt away by 2050.” Sanders didn’t include any scientists who disagreed with that claim.

The lack of balance on the issue prompted one network journalist, John Stossel of ABC, to do a story on the media’s one-sidedness on ”20/20” Oct. 19, 2007.

”You’ve heard the reports. The globe is warming. And it’s our fault. And the consequences will be terrible. But you should know there is another side to this story,” teased Stossel as he began his ”Give me a Break” segment. (Se mitt inlägg: Climate of Fear – 3!)

There is another side to the issue. In one story, Stossel interviewed four scientists critical of the so-called ”consensus” on global warming. That’s four more dissenting scientists than CBS put on its network in six entire months.”

– ”Journalist/global warming advocate Scott Pelley helped CBS be, by far, the worst network. Pelley argued in 2006 that he shouldn’t have to include skeptics in such stories because ”If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” In 2007, he helped ensure only four skeptics were included by CBSand not a single one was a scientist. Compare that to the 151 people used by the network to promote global warming hysteria.”

– ”Despite its over-the-top climate hypocrisy of jet-setting journalists around the world to cover climate change, ABC included more skepticism (36 percent) in its broadcasts than either NBC or CBS.”

”In many cases they have become advocates – even going ”to the ends of the earth” ”to find evidence of climate change.”

Ann Curry of NBC’s ”Today” made that clear on Oct. 29, 2007: ”[O]ur mission, of course, is to find evidence of climate change.”

”Journalists repeatedly phrased questions or made statements indicating human-caused warming was a fact, and they included opinions of politicians, movie stars, musicians and ordinary people like bankers instead of relying on scientists.”

”Even when one show claimed it would represent a range of opinions on the issue, it didn’t. On October 30, NBC ”Today” co-host Matt Lauer teased the upcoming ”Ends of the Earth” broadcasts saying to Meredith Vieira, ”And you’re going to be interviewing all the experts talking about the issues of climate change.” (emphasis added)

Vieira replied, ”Absolutely. Getting into a whole debate, too, because some people believe there’s an effect of climate change, others say not really. So we’re going to discuss all of it and give viewers at home real tips on what you can do.”

”But on November 5 and 6 as ”Today” went to the ”Ends of the Earth,” the only ”experts” Vieira spoke to were former vice president Al Gore, Chip Giller of Grist.org – a left-wing environmental Web site – and Katherine Wroth, co-author of ”Wake Up and Smell the Planet.”

Grist is an extreme publication. David Roberts of the environmentalist magazine called for ”war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg,” referring to the climate change ”denial industry.” (Roberts later retracted his comment, but not until it received a strongly negative response.)”

”The only skepticism of global warming ”consensus” that came up was a brief

mention by Vieira as she interviewed Gore. She asked Gore about John Christy, one scientist formerly with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who criticized Gore’s predictions in an op-ed printed in The Wall Street Journal. Gore shot back calling Christy an ”outlier.”

Journalists practically drooled over Al Gore during Live Earth interviews and after he won the Nobel Peace Prize. In contrast, people with alternative views barely got face time on the networks. Instead, they received insults and hostile questions.

The ugliest treatment of a skeptic was by Bill Weir on Nov. 18, 2007, ”Good Morning America.” He was interviewing Democratic state representative Bill Gooch from Kentucky.”

”Journalists also called skeptics ”deniers,” conjuring images of Holocaust deniers, and cast them as flat-earthers – ironically forgetting that there was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat.”

When Gore attacked Dr. Christy [who was mentioned by Meredith Vieira] on

”Today” Nov. 5, 2007, Gore specifically compared people critical of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming to people who think the Earth is flat. ”Well, he’s an outlier, he no longer belongs to the IPCC. And he is way outside the scientific consensus … There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat,” said Gore.

”CBS practically banned skeptics from its network, including only four and not a single scientist. The network seemed to adopt the mentality of CBS journalist Scott Pelley, who referred to global warming skeptics as ”deniers” in March 2006 when he said, ”If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” Recent ”60 Minutes” segments from Pelley indicated he hasn’t changed his mind about balanced journalism.”

”Those quotes were used to underline the points that reporters made. One story on ”Today” Nov. 6, 2007, warned that melting ice could kill off polar bears. Reporter Kerry Sanders included three unidentified people talking about polar bears – supporting his remark that ”Worst-case scenario: If the Arctic ice continues to melt, in the next 100 years, the U.S. Wildlife Service says the only place you’ll find a polar bear will be at the zoo.””

”Worries over Arctic melt flooded global warming coverage in the latter half of 2007, but as columnist John Tierney wrote in the Jan. 1, 2008 New York Times: ”When the Arctic sea ice last year [2007] hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored.”

”To many in the news media, global warming and its reported cause were already established fact. It was clear by the way some journalists talked about warming that they had accepted Gore’s insistence that ”the debate’s over.”

”Just listen to CBS’s Harry Smith: ”Before we do anything else, there is, in fact, global climate change. It really affects some climates much more than others and it’s really caused some real serious problems.” Those serious problems Smith was talking about were allergies during a segment on the Aug. 7, 2007 ”Early Show.”

But Dan Harris went the farthest on Dec. 2, 2007 in a story about security risk and global warming. The ”World News Sunday” host told viewers to ”Think about this scenario: global warming contributes to a severe drought and food shortage in a thirdworld country. The government collapses. Warlords take over. America is forced to intervene.”

Shockingly, Harris then claimed: ”It’s already happened, Somalia, 1993, with disastrous consequences.”

Consensus” was rarely questioned by reporters at all, and ABC’s Bill Weir even used the concept of ”these 4,000 or so scientists” to hammer at one person expressing a different view.

The media did a terrible job of actually explaining what the IPCC was. Atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy told Earth & Sky Web site that the ”IPCC would do well to define what each participant truly contributes to each product (i.e. Summary for Policy Makers vs. Full Text) so that the world would know that thousands of scientists never reached a ‘consensus’ on anything.”

When the Full Text is developed, ‘consensus’ is a concept held by the chapters’ Lead Authors who often ignore or contradict positions offered by the Contributing Authors and Reviewers,” explained Christy.

Not only did the networks censor skepticism from stories, but the cost of proposed solutions, small or large, was routinely omitted.

BMI found that 90 percent of the stories didn’t mention cost at all, even though the networks urged immediate action to stop the ”climate crisis.”

”Network reporters also didn’t focus on how much is already being spent. As the Business & Media Institute reported in its ”Fire and Ice” study, more than 99.5 percent of American climate change funding comes from the government – taxpayers – and we spend $4 billion per year on climate change research.

The Kyoto treaty that was never ratified by the U.S. carried an estimated cost of $440 billion per year for America. The Senate voted 95 to 0 to reject it.”

Den första studien (Global Warming Censored) finns här:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingcensored.pdf

Den andra studien (Fire and Ice) finns här:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

_____________________________________________________________

                      Global Warming Censored 2008

Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians,
Rock Stars and Men-on-the-Street for Science

                                                                                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A study from the Business & Media InstituteBy Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor


     Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change ”debate’s over.” It isn’t, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like ”cynics” or ”deniers” thrown in to undermine them.     Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions.     The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about ”global warming” or ”climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called ”consensus” on the issue.

  • Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.

• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

  • What’s It Going to Cost?: All ”solutions” have a price, but the cost of fighting global warming was something you rarely heard on the network news. Only 22 stories (11 percent) mentioned any cost of ”fixing” global warming. On the rare occasion cost came up, it came from the lips of a skeptic like Kentucky state Rep. Jim Gooch (D), who said one climate change bill in Congress ”would cost $6 trillion.”

 


  • CBS the Worst: Journalist/global warming advocate Scott Pelley helped CBS be, by far, the worst network. Pelley argued in 2006 that he shouldn’t have to include skeptics in such stories because ”If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” In 2007, he helped ensure only four skeptics were included by CBS – and not a single one was a scientist. Compare that to the 151 people used by the network to promote global warming hysteria. The wildly one-sided outcome was not surprising given remarks by some of its other journalists. Harry Smith declared that ”There is, in fact, global climate change” on the Aug. 7, 2007, ”Early Show.”

• ABC the ”Best”: Despite its over-the-top climate hypocrisy of jet-setting journalists around the world to cover climate change, ABC included more skepticism (36 percent) in its broadcasts than either NBC or CBS. Still, the network has plenty of work to do. Bill Weir made the outrageous claim during the Nov. 18, 2007, ”Good Morning America” that ”all these scientists” urge immediate action to stop global warming. Weather personality Sam Champion even referred to the most recent U.N. climate report as ”unequivocal” and ”definitive.To improve coverage, BMI recommends:

 

  • Report the issue objectively: Reporters have a professional responsibility to remain objective and avoid inserting their own opinions into their reports. Many in the media have sorely missed that mark when it comes to reporting on global warming and climate change.
  • Include skeptics: The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states journalists should ”Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” It is the media’s job to inform the public, not persuade them by leaving out alternative viewpoints. Particularly, networks should give skeptical scientists the opportunity to share their findings – just like they include scientists who say manmade global warming is negatively impacting the planet.

Show Me the Money: If the U.S. government passes legislation to address global warming, it will carry a cost and American taxpayers have a right to know what it would be. The media need to do a much better job by asking about or including cost estimates of climate change ”solutions.”

_____________________________________________________________

Fire and Ice ( 2006)

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

——————————————————————————–

     Thanks to the release of Al Gore’s latest effort on global warming – this time in book and movie form – climate change is the hot topic in press rooms around the globe. It isn’t the first time.

     The media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.

     As the noise from the controversy has increased, it has drowned out any debate. Journalists have taken advocacy positions, often ignoring climate change skeptics entirely. One CBS reporter even compared skeptics of manmade global warming to Holocaust deniers.

     The Society of Environmental Journalists Spring 2006 SEJournal included a now-common media position, arguing against balance. But that sense of certainty ignores the industry’s history of hyping climate change – from cooling to warming, back to cooling and warming once again.

     The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute (formerly the Free Market Project) conducted an extensive analysis of print media’s climate change coverage back to the late 1800s.

     It found that many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895.

     In addition, BMI found:

”Global Cooling” Was Just as Realistic: Several publications warned in the 1970s that global cooling posed a major threat to the food supply. Now, remarkably, global warming is also considered a threat to the very same food supply.

Glaciers Are Growing or Shrinking: The media continue to point to glaciers as a sign of climate change, but they have used them as examples of both cooling and warming.

Global Warming History Ignored: The media treat global warming like it’s a new idea. In fact, British amateur meteorologist G. S. Callendar argued that mankind was responsible for heating up the planet with carbon dioxide emissions – in 1938. That was decades before scientists and journalists alerted the public about the threat of a new ice age.

New York Times the Worst: Longtime readers of the Times could easily recall the paper claiming ”A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” along with its strong support of current global warming predictions. Older readers might well recall two other claims of a climate shift back to the 1800s – one an ice age and the other warming again. The Times has warned of four separate climate changes since 1895.

Etiketter:

2 svar to “Det råder “consensus” om Global Warming – IGEN! Eller hur kritiken mot Global Warming censureras”

  1. Climate Change (Bias by Media=Saturation) (do you care?) « SwittersB’s Weblog Says:

    […] https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/det-rader-%E2%80%9Cconsensus%E2%80%9D-om-global-warming-%E2… […]

  2. There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] of Global Warming!, Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?,  Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?,  Det råder ”consensus” om Global Warming – IGEN! Eller hur kritiken mot Global War…,  Miljöhysterins tyranni – nu skall vi fängslas om vi inte tror på Global Warming!, […]

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Google-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: