S
ST
Guest
http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=12990
February 15, 2007
Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
By Alan Caruba
(AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -
As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up. There is
something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
report summary, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
"could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
actually be altered to reflect the initial summary. That is not science. It
is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
for an alternative source of information.
February 15, 2007
Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!
By Alan Caruba
(AXcess News) S. Orange, NJ -
As a very young man, fresh out of college and the army in the mid-1960's, I
found myself employed as a rookie reporter on a weekly newspaper in New
Jersey. I had never taken a course in journalism in my life, but I could
write. The managing editor of the newspaper group that serviced a number of
communities taught me all I ever needed to know about journalism. He taught
me to be skeptical of everything and everyone. Not distrustful. Skeptical.
People will tell you the truth they believe or want you to believe. They may
be wrong. Or they may be deceitful. There's a difference. However, when
error and deceit combine, there is a purpose, an agenda, and it exists, as
often as not, to acquire wealth and power despite the harm it will leave in
its wake. At the heart of what is wrong with journalism today is that
legions of journalists will stand shoulder to shoulder for the sole purpose
of deriding any "global warming skeptic" rather than wonder for a second how
the "news" of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s became the "news" of Global
Warming in the 1980s. I am reminded of this daily as I read newspapers and
news magazines in which various reporters blithely and deliberately inform
the reader that all questions regarding the existence of global warming have
been answered, that the science is beyond doubt, and that the cause is the
production of greenhouse gases, largely from industry, transportation, and
other human activities. This is not merely an error. It is a complete
deception the journalists have joined. They have ceased to be skeptical.
They want you to stop being skeptical despite all evidence to the contrary.
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist," says Dr. Timothy
Ball. He has Ph.D. in climatology, having earned his degree from the
University of London, England, and taught for many years at the University
of Winnipeg. A Google search of his name turns up a plethora of posts
attacking him, always a sure sign that the Greens feel threatened by an
outspoken scientist. The quote below explains why: "Believe it or not,
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science." Dr. Ball
is hardly alone in his views. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist
and a professor of meteorology at MIT, as well as a member of the National
Academy of Science, has said of Global Warming that, "the consensus was
reached before the research had even begun." Increasingly, not just climate
scientists, but people in leadership positions around the world have joined
in rebuking the Global Warming hoax. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is only
the most recent, joining Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, in
2006, received a letter from sixty prominent scientists expressing
opposition to the theory of Global Warming. The list is growing as other
scientists in France, Denmark and around the world speak up. There is
something quite horrible about the complete failure of America's journalists
to even acknowledge there might be something terribly wrong about the theory
of Global Warming. So far the published science that purports to support the
theory has been severely challenged and even disproved to the point of
having deliberately falsified data. Too many journalists have remained
steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most
astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears
disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise
of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree
Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.
Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is
demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of
being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public
relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted.
However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would
be in shreds if my facts were wrong. Is this new generation of journalists
indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission
to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be
ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the
news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages. For the week
leading up to and following the recent release of the United Nations climate
report summary, the front pages of America's newspapers proclaimed that
Global Warming was real, millions would die from starvation, and the fresh
water resources of the world would go dry by 2080. The final report is not
due out for months and, like previous reports, what "science" is cited to
support this balderdash will be thoroughly encumbered with words like
"could", "may", "might", "is believed", or "is predicted." These are mushy
words that scientists abhor. They want proof. The final report will
actually be altered to reflect the initial summary. That is not science. It
is propaganda. We look to journalists to present facts as accurately and
dispassionately as possible. When they tell you the Earth is doomed, look
for an alternative source of information.
