Posted By Marc Morano - 6:08 PM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
Round up of Media Coverage of 2008 International Conference on Climate Change
[ Note: Click Here To Read Part One of the Reports on the International Conference on Climate Change - See: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression; NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims ]
New York, New York – Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC.
Media Coverage of Conference
The climate conference garnered the attention of many media outlets including: The New York Times; BBC; Washington Post; ABC News; Associated Press; Reuters; China Post; CNSNews.com; CNN; New York Sun; Fox News; Times of India; Czech’s Ceske Noviny; Investor's Business Daily; Canada’s Financial Post; United Press International; WorldNetDaily.com; and the Wall Street Journal. (Note: Some of the mainstream media coverage reached bottom quickly – See CNN’s Miles O’Brien accuses scientists at conference of being ‘Flat Earthers’ – LINK )
Some of the mainstream media coverage, including several articles in New York Times, presented fair coverage. See here, here and here. [Note: Despite many mainstream media outlets efforts to mock the gathering, it was a semi-victory for the conference that reporters likes Miles O’Brien of CNN and Bill Blakemore of ABC News even showed up For info on O’Brien’s past climate reporting, see here. For info on Blakemore's past climate reporting see here. ]The Business and Media Institute (BMI) also released their comprehensive study during the conference which reveals how the news media reports on global warming. The report, titled “Global Warming Censored” found that network TV news stifles debate, relies on “politicians, rock stars and men-on-the street for science’ reporting. (LINK) BMI also critiqued the news media coverage of the International Conference on Climate Change. (LINK) WorldNetDaily.com has a critique of the media coverage titled “Mainstream media's mockery.” (LINK) American Thinker weighed in with a very comprehensive report from the conference. (LINK)
Funding myths exposed
One of the most incisive articles about the conference came from John Tierney of the New York Times. Tierney exposed the erroneous notion that “industry” funding fuels climate skepticism. “Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority? I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change,” Tierney wrote on March 6. (LINK)
[ Note: Click Here To Read Part One of the Reports on the International Conference on Climate Change: See: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression; NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims ]
Sampling of News Coverage of Climate Conference
Talk show host Glenn Beck interviews climate researcher Lord Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: Excerpt: “What happened is that I looked at Al Gore's movie with mounting horror and I identified three dozen scientific errors in it. So I had a weather mate of mine who takes an interest in these matters and also had the money to pay for a court case and I said I thought this film was rubbish. Two weeks later he rang up and said he wanted to do something to fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about. And so I said, well, the best thing is that you dish your review, a rather peculiar kind of court case in the high court in London in front of custard faced judges.
Excerpt: “We should begin to see cooling coming on,” Gray said. “I’m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.” Gray, 79, wasn’t sure if he’d be around to see his prediction come true. “I may not be around by that time,” Gray said. “But, I’ve asked some of my students to put dandelions on my grave if that happens.” Gray criticized NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen, calling him “the most egregious abuser” of data. According to Gray, Hansen’s alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere.
Excerpt: I'm asking the question that if Al Gore knows that CO2 forcing, that is, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from our fossil fuels, is not causing global warming, isn't he committing financial fraud when he sells carbon credits to people to offset their use of fossil fuels and putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? I've asked the question and believe me, a lot of people were really interested in that question.
Climatologist’s New Study Finds Lower CO2 Impact on Atmosphere - Reason Blog:
Excerpt: In fact, using satellite data combined with a small model, [Climatologist Dr. Roy] Spencer finds that changes in cloudiness appear to drive changes in temperature. If this is so, Spencer suggests, this means that models have fundamentally mixed up cause and effect. He reported that his study had been peer-reviewed by the two of the climatologists on whose work the IPCC relied for estimating climate sensitivity. "Both came back and said 'you're right,'" claimed Spencer. If Spencer's results are confirmed—and this is a huge if—it would mean that the climate is far less sensitive to perturbation by carbon dioxide than the models suggest. Spencer says that if he is right about climate sensitivity that would imply that the average temperature of the planet might rise by +0.5 degrees centigrade by the end of this century due to the effects of rising carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. (LINK)
Excerpt: On Monday, climate alarmist Miles O'Brien of CNN actually had the gall to imply that speakers and attendees of this conference are Flat Earthers. I kid you not. During Monday evening's "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees," O'Brien concluded his videotaped report concerning this conference (video available here at end of blog post): Even the Flat Earth Society didn't fold its tent in 1493. How disgraceful.
Excerpt: The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say – over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films. They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. They have swayed the views of many people. Some of them have even grown very rich in the process, and others still hope to. But they have lost the debate. Winners don’t exaggerate. Winners don’t lie. Winners don’t appeal to fear or resort to ad hominem attacks. As George Will also wrote, “people only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.” We invited Al Gore to speak to us tonight, and even agreed to pay his $200,000 honoraria. He refused. We invited some of the well-known scientists associated with the alarmist camp, and they refused.
AP: Czech president rouses climate skeptics at conference where some worry about global cooling
Excerpt: A lot of the people at this climate conference — headlined by the self-described "politically incorrect" Czech president — wanted to talk about global cooling. More than 500 people from 23 countries, including some 100 scientists, attended a three-day climate conference that ended Tuesday in New York and was organized by Chicago-based Heartland Institute. "Some of the scientists here believe we are entering into a cooling period, and that's just based on well-known solar cycles," said Heartland's president, Joseph Bast.
Global Warming Schemes Will Curb Freedom, Czech President Says
Excerpt: Centralized planners with "megalomaniac ambitions" are now working to restrain democratic development and economic activity under the guise of environmentalism, said Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic.
Natural Forces, Not Man, Causing Global Warming, Scientist Says
Excerpt: "The science is settled in the sense that we have evidence that most of the climate change taking place today is caused by natural forces and not by human activity," Singer said during his luncheon address at the conservative Heartland Institute. As was previously reported by the Cybercast News Service, Singer is a long-time critic of the "alarmist" view of global warming.
Washington Post: Conference of skeptics says humans have little to do with climate change
Excerpt: When Christopher Monckton, who served as a special adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, ponders the political push to curb greenhouse gases linked to climate change, he thinks of King Canute. According to Monckton, Canute - the Viking who ruled England along with much of Scandinavia nearly 1,000 years ago - took his courtiers to the ocean’s edge one day, set down his throne and ordered the tide not to come in. The tide, of course, came in, and the king got wet. The lesson? The king taught his advisers humility, Monckton said, by showing them that even he, a king, could not control nature. In the same way, he said, modern-day politicians should not fool themselves into thinking that humanity is having a major effect on climate.
Report #3 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
Excerpt: Dr. Klaus was followed by Dr. William Gray, one of the country's preeminent hurricane forecasters and a pioneer in tropical meteorological research. Gray described what he called the huge errors in the treatment of water vapor by computer models used to forecast future weather conditions and pointed to evidence showing the warming predicted by the models was not occurring at the altitudes and latitudes predicted by the models.
Excerpt: Climate Not a Crisis: The International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, wrapped up Tuesday. Very different assessments of its sessions are here (Reason), here (John Tierney) and here (DeSmogBlog). The assemblage proposed a Manhattan Declaration: 1) That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems. 2) That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. 3) That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate. 4) That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples. 5) That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
NY Times: Lessons from the Skeptics’ Conference
Excerpt: Yesterday I asked you to analyze a report presented at the Heartland Institute’s conference of global-warming skeptics. A lot of readers had the same reaction I did after I read the report and attended the conference yesterday: There are some interesting points here, but who knows? The skeptics point to some genuine discrepancies between the climate models and what’s actually happened; they’re probably right in criticizing the United Nations’ I.P.C.C. for not paying enough attention to the impact of solar variations on the Earth’s climate. But climate is so complicated, and cuts across so many scientific disciplines, that it’s impossible to know which discrepancies or which variables are really important. Considering how many false alarms have been raised previously by scientists (the “population crisis,” the “energy crisis,” the “cancer epidemic” from synthetic chemicals), I wouldn’t be surprised if the predictions of global warming turn out to be wrong or greatly exaggerated. Scientists are prone to herd thinking — informational cascades and this danger is particularly acute when they have to rely on so many people outside their field to assess a topic as large as climate change. So I’m glad to see contrarians raising awkward questions and pointing out weaknesses in predictions made with computer models. As S. Fred Singer, the editor of the skeptics’ report, said at the conference yesterday: “Models are very nice, but they’re not reality and they’re not evidence.”
Excerpt: Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority? I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change. If I write about prominent climate scientists like James Hansen of NASA, I don’t feel obliged to note how much research money they get — or how much extra money is going to their field because of the concerns they’ve raised about climate change. I don’t dismiss Al Gore’s warnings just because his campaign against global warming has been so good for his career. I don’t obsess about show much gets per lecture or what he does with the money. At RealClimate , the blog that touts its devotion to sober scientific analysis, the Heartland Institute was written off as “a front group for the fossil fuel industry,” the same them that was picked up by some commenters on this blog. […]A cap-and-trade systems for curbing carbon emissions (the kind criticized at this week’s conference) is popular in Washington in no small part because of corporate lobbyists who see a chance to make money from the carbon credits. There’s money to be made in developing alternative energy — even when it’s not so green, like the ethanol industry that has been collecting subsidies for decades. There’s money to be made by cultivating a green image. And there’s lots of money to be doled out to researchers studying climate change and new energy technologies. [...] But more important, how long do we have to keep talking about money? Should I be doing more to focus the debate on substance by screening out the comments from readers who’d rather discuss finances than debate ideas?
The Media Destruction Machine at Work (Alan Caruba)
Excerpt: Since the early 1980s it has published some of the most astonishingly idiotic articles about it global warming including the claim that the North Pole was melting. The latest in a line of Times reporters on the subject is Andrew C. Revkin. He began his March 4 article, “Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming”, by writing that, “Several hundred people sat in a fifth-floor ballroom at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square on Monday eating pasta and trying hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways.” This is not journalism. This is opinion. It belongs on the opinion pages, not in the news section. Moreover, the suggestion that the speakers and attendees were “trying hard” suggests that it took anything more than a review of actual climate data to dispute the claim that the Earth has warmed dramatically and is likely to warm more. Even Meteorology 101 students know that the Earth has warmed barely one degree Fahrenheit since the end of the last mini-ice age in 1850. This is a quite natural warming and hardly attributable to human factors. Thereafter Revkin larded his report with the kind of qualifiers intended to discredit anyone named. The famed climatologist, Patrick J. Michaels, was identified as having “a paid position at the antiregulatory Cato Institute…” Presumably, everyone attending the conference had a paid position of some sort or they could have ill-afforded to be there.
Excerpt: A single year or weather event is newsworthy and meaningful . . . unless it’s the wrong kind. Individual research papers warrant coverage . . . and what coverage! . . . but only when their results are alarmist. Otherwise, they’re just one paper. We have learned that three years is a pattern . . . unless it is on the cooling side of the ledger. We know that ten years is conclusive . . . unless it’s the past ten years, when no warming is evident. Unseasonably warm weather is clear evidence of global warming, exceptional cold is merely an anomaly — or better yet, further proof of climate disruption. Warming temperatures — over whatever period the press chooses — and retreating glaciers — whatever the season — are sure signs of “global warming.” Cooling temperatures and advancing glaciers signify nothing. The alarmists and their press proxies are also quick to point to funding and financial interests . . . if you disagree with their agenda. Meanwhile, absolutely no one on the skeptics’ side of the argument has earned as much money as Al Gore and his tiresome advisor James Hansen have off of their high-profile climate alarmism.
Excerpt: To the New York Times' Andrew Revkin, it was a "quirky conference" of people "driven mainly by libertarian passions or a nonconformist streak." In a companion article Revkin highlighted a claim that the conference was "a harmful distraction" from the agenda of the climate-change mob. […]Straightforward reporting in daily newspapers, including an article in the New York Sun, unfortunately was rare.
NY Climate Conference: Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity (American Thinker)
Excerpt: There were a total of 32 discussions between the opening shredding of temperature records and biased recording mechanisms offered by Prof. Robert Balling and Ross McKitrick and the closing session's critique of media bias by ABC News correspondent John Stossel. Of those, 11 were purely devoted to science and another 8 studied impacts, which were often scientifically inclusive.
Part One of Reports on the International Conference on Climate Change: See: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression; NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims ]
# # #