Lucky photo of actual climate caught in the act of changing. Similar catastrophes can be expected in numerous places every summer and during drought. CAUTION: Does not depict all reported effects of climate change, including but not limited to flooding, sea level rise, struggling brothels, ocean acidification, acne, cannibalism, lost fish, rioting and nuclear war, whale weight loss, sexual promiscuity, cockroach migration, shrinking brains nor the extinction of any species.
Media organisations around the world are working together to cover climate change more effectively. — h/t Magoo
So says Stuff, explaining:
Stuff.co.nz has joined 24 other media organisations from around the world in a network that will share climate change stories in the lead-up to a United Nations summit in Paris in December. The 25 founding partners of the Climate Publishing Network were brought together by The Guardian, El Pais and the Global Editors Network.
I suppose they might include some sceptical points of view, but I’m not holding my breath. At least The Guardian doesn’t hide the group’s activist intent, but puts it openly:
An unprecedented alliance of news publishers including the Guardian, El País, Le Monde and China Daily have agreed to share climate change content to raise awareness in the runup to the next UN summit.
Raising awareness among the public means no more and no less than persuading the “public” of the merits of reducing emissions. They make it sound like an efficiency drive, as though they cared about their competitor’s success. But the catastrophes of climate change, real and imagined, are a publisher’s dream. Sharing scoops is the last thing they want.
In reality, they see the profitable parade of present and future disasters threatened by sceptical activities and articles. Banding together to minimise the sceptical influence during this crucial pre-conference period could help bring about an international agreement and thus preserve the climate change pretence, I mean plan, for a very long time.
Because from the publishers’ point of view, it’s not so much a climate change plan as a success-beyond-the-wildest-dreams-of-a-climate-change-publisher’s knighthood and superannuation plan.
This cabal is truly unprecedented and, since journalists have ready access to research information that rebuts all the reasons to panic over the climate, the only motivation for this Climate Publishing Network is a conspiracy to keep the global warming scare alive because it sells newspapers. Even as a lie, doom is newsworthy, so let’s pretend the predictions of doom mean something.
This cartel’s propaganda will come to seem the truth
The Guardian says, “Climate change is the biggest challenge humanity is currently facing and requires new ways of collaborating across geographic as well as political boundaries.”
They call it collaborating. These are newspapers, talking for the first time in history of collaborating. Believers in the church of global warming no doubt trust that this wonderful new cartel markets world-saving news and information, not false science and propaganda against its enemies. I can disabuse them of that notion, for this evil empire plans to disband on the last day of the COP 21 summit on 11 December.
This coterie of conspirators likes it not at all to stay wedded to its foes even a day longer than absolutely necessary for its unspeakable purpose, which is to obstruct the truth, obfuscate climate science and bring a black curtain of ignorance down across the human race. Everywhere we turn for the next six-and-a-half months we’ll see the same distorted stories of present and future climate disaster.
It will come to seem the truth.
One must spend a large amount of time reading to keep abreast of the latest developments. The ordinary person doesn’t care for that, so, not knowing any better, they agree to whatever seemingly-credible nonsense is most recently trumpeted at them.
This sinister move puts a large chunk of popular readership under the sway of the activists leading the climate panic.
For further information
Global Editors Network here and here.
Views: 89
The CAGW issue seems to me to be as divisive as ever. The zealots build fortresses and persecute heretics. The questioners not so much. This little (“Stuff”) anecdote of history is a fortress-build tactic. It’s a consensus tactic combined with an independent journalism cloak. If the cloak fails to convince the majority, the consensus will certainly, as in the ‘97% of scientists’ anecdote. In that case it was (is still) a decadal influence on the uninquiring populace. This new international collaboration of news outlets smells like a case of ‘Birds of a feather flock together’. It’s the same sort of biased bird, only now it’s in a flock. In such a situation, the confirmation bias amongst reporters within the flock is time-warping in it’s gravitational effect. One can expect the bias from such a cooperation amongst corporations will be strong. It may take time, but in the end water will find its own level. In the meantime, perhaps we can help the water along by digging channels through mental roadblocks.
There are some additional news articles on this at Daily Media Review under New Zealand (dated 07/06/15). Several media organizations seem to be shamelessly casting their professional ethics aside to openly promote climate activism in the runup to Paris 2015. China Daily Media Group editor-in-chief says the following:
“That deal, if such is the case, will prove that the world can be united to find solutions to our life-or-death challenge of global warming, In achieving this, the media should shoulder its share of the responsibility and I believe our joint global effort in setting up this network is a very important step to fulfilling that.”
http://dailymediareview.weebly.com
Mark Twain was dead right when he said ‘a lie is halfway around the world before truth has it’s boots on’ and the cretins at the Guardian and associated conspirators know this. Dead Tree organisations are desperate to cling to their rapidly-waning influence. I suspect the Paris conference will be a bust, despite the machinations of the Guardian-led cabal of eco-journalists.
Matt Ridley:
“Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudo-science – homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science.
Or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/05/new-york-magazines-climate-change-pushing-jonathan-chait-blown-up-by-his-own-science-bomb/
Turns out, in view of Karl et al (2015), that climate science is self-correcting after all.
‘NOAA Study [Karl et al] Takes World ‘by Storm’: No Global Warming Pause!’
By E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.
Imagine for a moment that you’re investigating the question, “Is there an elephant in the house?” It’s a 9-room house. Each of eight investigators finds an elephant in a different one of eight rooms. Eight rooms, eight elephants. But one investigator finds no elephant in the bathroom. Would you conclude from his finding, “No elephant in the house”?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/06/noaa-study-takes-world-by-storm-no-global-warming-pause/
# # #
I expect to be regaled by the compliant media and manic warmism that Karl et al (what the eco-loons at Skeptical Science would describe as “single study sydrome” if it were a sceptical paper) is the definitive, end all argument, case closed, ’nuff said, move along, talk to the hand, confirmation that man-made climate change is unequivocal and that “deniars” are all dead wrong about no warming now.
It’s a “major review” apparently (actually I agree with this, although “major Lysenkoism” is more appropriate):
‘Slow-down’ in climate change never happened, says major review
The Independent – Jun 4, 2015
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/slowdown-in-climate-change-never-happened-says-major-review-10298328.html
The predictable from The Guardian:
Global warming ‘pause’ didn’t happen, study finds
The Guardian – Jun 4, 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds
And a “science bomb” has been dropped on us (like a damp squib):
Scientists Drop Science Bomb on Climate-Change Skeptics
New York Mag, June 4, 2015
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/scientists-drop-science-bomb-on-climate-skeptics.html
Check out the trend line from the graph in the last article reproduced from the paper:
Title: No Slow Down In Global Warming
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/04/04-gloabal-warming-pause.w529.h352.2x.png
This is just one of the minor criticisms of the paper (let alone the main ones). The beginning of the LINEAR trend (beloved by warmists) includes the zero warming of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Even in this stretch-of-reason paper, a statistically appropriate curve trend would produce the initial 50s – 70s flatlining and a slowdown of the 80s and 90s warming in the 2000s+.
And all this revisionist propaganda and they’re STILL unable to validate the CO2-forced models.
The press have dropped any pretense of professional ethics regarding climate change. Here’s the editor-in-chief of the China Daily Media Group on the media conglomeration:
“That deal [Paris 2015], if such is the case, will prove that the world can be united to find solutions to our life-or-death challenge of global warming, In achieving this, the media should shoulder its share of the responsibility and I believe our joint global effort in setting up this network is a very important step to fulfilling that.”
source: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-05/22/content_20795823.htm
I find the whole thing extremely disturbing.
[Stuff] – “The founding partners represented a variety of political leanings,…”
The variety is reassuring, the leanings aren’t.
But why is politics the media yardstick anyway? What happened to objective investigative journalistic critiques irrespective of politics?
>”life-or-death challenge of global warming”
Just when I thought the hyperbole was already at fever pitch…………
RC,
Hah! You call that fever pitch? Global warming isn’t a matter of life or death; it’s more important than that. It’s right up there with football.
I noted that the comments section of this article on stuff was heavily moderated. The notion of agenda-driven journalism was not welcomed. How they could be so blind to this and the inevitable colour of the articles not being biased is actually quite comical.
Actually, about those eight elephants in the nine rooms… Another person on another blog already commented, there were in fact nine elephants in nine rooms, but the researchers removed one elephant from one room, and after this adjustment, claimed there was no elephant there. I found the comment a more accurate analogy of the recent NOAA study.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/201757686/extreme-weather-and-climate-change
Roughly translated: climate change (by whatever cause) is causing the climate to change
Noting also that the bumper snow conditions in the mountains are also from the same weather system that brought the Dunedin floods, which may have something to do with El Nino, that will, apparently, give us a colder than usual winter.
i.e “climate change”
Andy,
I don’t have time to do any more about it just now, but in reply to:
What do you refer to by climate change?
Are you saying our warming over the last 100 years was caused entirely by the actions of humanity?
If not, how much did they cause and how much was due to natural forces?
Are you saying there has been no local changes of temperature, but that the whole of the global warming of 100 years has been visited upon New Zealand?
What do you say to David Wratt, who informs us that our climate is “moderated” by the ocean?
Last I looked at BEST NZ monthly data the trend 1997 – 2013 (1.77 decades) was -0.096 C/decade i.e. no climate change or warming as per the global data sets and contrary to Karl et al (2015).
There had been cooling before that from 1970 – 1997 too. ’97/98 El Nino produced an abrupt +0.4 C shift, hence an overall linear warming trend. Not a valid representation of course given the recent trend but construed to be persistent warming (climate change attributable to climate change – odd, as Andy points out).
According to NIWA’s future scenario web page, NZ should be in a +0.18 C/decade regime since 1990 because of human CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. This is 2.5 times the observed rate since 1970. Sam Dean at NiWA might ponder this.
Well, we have a Dunedin meteorologist saying that there is nothing unusual about the flooding, we have a website showing historical data to back this up, and in the other corner, appearing on “Red Radio”, the State Broadcasting Apparatus, we have someone from NIWA saying it is climate change
Take your pick
Well, yes, but I’m rather more interested in the someone from NIWA’s answer.
RC,
I sincerely hope he does! The way you put it, there’s no problem!
*listens to email bing-bong* Cripes, it’s another request for editing! 25 k words. There’s no rest for the wicked.
Slightly O/T, but I do recommend Mark Steyn’s keynote (on the Hockey Stick and Man’s lawsuit against him) at ICCC
It is very funny too.
http://www.steynonline.com/section/71/defend-free-speech
Steyn’s bit is about 30 mins into the video