Journalists protest Global Warming spin cycle

American Thinker ^ | July 03, 2009 | William Tate

[neverdem]

Even journalists are beginning to revolt at tactics the government is now using to spin the Global Warming myth.

Controversy erupted this week at the World Conference of Science Journalists over the National Science Foundation's "underwriting" of media projects. It turns out that the NSF, which is heavily invested in propagating the Global Warming party line, has been quietly producing content for news outlets, content which the casual observer might not recognize for the propaganda it is.

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the NSF's Jeff Nesbit was met with "consternation" at the London conference for "attempting to 'disguise' publicity as objective reporting."

As stated earlier, the NSF is a major player in the Global Warming cult, having funded studies which claim that, despite cooling temperatures, warming is inevitable this century, and that it will impact everything from vintners who produce Pinot Noir to the world's largest freshwater lake in Siberia. 

The NSF provides about twenty percent of all federal funding for scientific research.  It is now also providing media outlets with content, such as the below from U.S. News & Report: 

NSF Releases Comprehensive Report on Global Impacts of Climate Change

Agency proposes to double climate research portfolio in 2010

Posted May 14, 2009

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has released a report on global climate change, entitled "Solving the Puzzle: Researching the Impacts of Climate Change around the World," that describes how, over nearly 60 years, NSF-funded researchers have found signs of a changing climate in nearly every corner of the globe, from the icy expanses of Earth's polar regions to its equatorial ecosystems.

The article does note, "content provided by the National Science Foundation." However, there is no such disclaimer posted for the Discovery Files podcasts available there, one of which states:

"the time for just talking about Global Warming is over. The good news is that action now could stabilize the threat of climate change."

The NSF also provides content to LiveScience, which published a piece in February announcing the agency's request for a budget increase, doubling funding for "basic research" over the next decade, and:

"Making climate change research and education a priority. The budget supports research to improve our ability to predict future environmental conditions and to develop strategies for responding to global environmental change. The budget establishes a climate change education program to help develop the next generation of environmentally engaged scientists and engineers."

It is not clear from the report if the budget increase would also include more content to be placed in media outlets.

This particular article states that it was written by LiveScience staff; still senior editor Robin Lloyd conceded that accepting other content produced by the NSF as other articles isn't "ideal." According to the CJR, she admitted, "We are throwing up their press stuff."

Although some of the NSF's propaganda activities are more traditional, such as underwriting PBS science programming, how can news organizations objectively cover a government agency for which said outlets are also "throwing up their (the NSF's) press stuff"?

It should be pointed out that the journalists who objected at the London conference -- many of whom are Global Warming true believers -- were not complaining about the NSF's promotion of Global Warming, but rather, as the CJR reported, "that the NSF is dangerously blurring the lines between journalism and PR."

But it still could be a step in the right direction.

The late Michael Crichton, in an appendix to his novel, State of Fear, compared the 'science' behind man-made Global Warming to the similarly questionable research behind eugenics, the specious theory floated a little over a century ago that the human gene pool was being weakened by supposedly inferior peoples, leading eventually to a supposedly-scientific basis for Adolf Hitler's evils. Crichton pointed out that eugenics was once supported by the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council and that opponents of this "psuedoscience" were called reactionary and shouted down.

Crichton quoted Ute Deichman's Biologists Under Hitler:

"Scientists, including those who were not members of the (Nazi) party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state."

In other words, in order to get funding, scientists played along voluntarily.

Another theory advanced by the Nazis was the Big Lie: 

"(T)he broad masses ... more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods"

A big part of telling the Big Lie was using propaganda.

Neither Crichton meant then -- nor I mean now -- to imply that supporters of Global Warming are racist, or totalitarian, or even evil. Rather, Crichton intended his analysis, based on three years of research, as a warning of the dangers of mis-using science as a crutch to prop up political ambitions.

My warning is similar. Just as scientists were wrong in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to jettison scientific principles for a popular theory. Journalists, and journalistic organizations, are now wrong to sacrifice ethics for the current hot scientific craze. Pun intended.

William Tate is an award-winning journalist and author

[bert]

I went for a hike this week and as usual, the mountains brought focused clarity to my thinking.

A personal solution to my personal carbon problem came with clarity.

The carbon emission/global warming problem is a lie. Logic dictates that a solution can also be a lie

Hence forth, I will tell the following untruths.

1. I will reduce carbon emission energy use by reducing hot water consumption. I will turn down the thermostat on the water heater to 105, and use hot water only for bathing and dish washing.

2. a.I will reduce vehicle fuel consumption by increasing tire air pressure there by reducing rolling resistance.
b.I will keep the vehicles waxed, clean and shiny thereby reducing boundary layer air flow turbulence and decreasing aerodynamic drag.
c. I will adjust the computer settings on my turbodiesel van to increase the air to fuel ratio and the boost pressure to the injectors to maintain power while reducing fuel usage.

3. I will increase the number of large philodendron plants in my office and studio from 2 to 4. These plants having leaves in excess of 16 inches in length have a large capacity for CO2 absorption while photosynthesizing with leaf maintenance and water as byproducts.

4. I will maintain energy reducing thermostat settings at 77 degrees during the cooling season and 67 degrees during the heating season.

7.I will eat only fresh fruits and vegetables and store no leftovers in the refrigerator. I will open the refrigerator door only three times a day and will disconnect the light.

By implementing these 7 actions,the model projects an energy usage reduction of between 17.3% and 28.4% depending on the exterior temperature/humidity ratio.

Although not widely publicized, I seem to be joining such Giants as GE and DuPont in solving the problem

[SunkenCiv]

thanks neverdem.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

---

Free Republic "Wakes Up the World"

---

[Robert A Cook PE]

Er, uhm, did you notice that (by law! and without any bid process) GE is getting ALL of the government's cap-endless-tax carbon-trading business, at a good fee per trade, plus it is getting government subsides for its profit-losing windmill businesses, plus it's getting government subsidies for it's profit-losing loan businesses .... And GE is getting a large amount of the bailout loan transfers also.

But Pelosi herself also owns a good bit of GE stock , and her family owns even more, so GE is getting a LOT of government bailout money.

[Robert A Cook PE]

www.wattsupwiththat.com

and

www.icecap.us

have excellent, day-to-day updates and plots and research papers challenging the AGW hysteria and propaganda.

www.co2sciecne.org also has hundreds of papers showing the CO2 side of the house - particularly with respect to the plants and atmosphere conditions.

[AFPhys]

They sure do. Both are a constant source of information for me. I was just trying to help that guy understand in a nutshell the stupidity of the alarmists when the temperature of earth is so clearly related to the Sun’s activity. The fact that the alarmists don’t understand the “sensitivity” of climate to the Sun well enough to apply appropriate amplification factors doesn’t excuse their attempt to ignore it. I know you agree with me here... I just get so angry about this garbage.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Of course, it might help if I could type right when I typewright: The above should have been:

www.co2science.org also has hundreds of papers showing the CO2 side of the house.

[ForGod'sSake]

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the NSF's Jeff Nesbit was met with "consternation" at the London conference for "attempting to 'disguise' publicity as objective reporting."

Well gawrsh, the NSF up to no good? Knock me over with a feather! Objective reporting no less...

The CJR has discovered a drip from a faucet while missing a broken water main altogether. The nefarious agenda(s) of the NSF on our dime would fill a large volume; maybe several. It hasn't been about science for decades. It's about creating a consensus, and not just within the domestic scientific community™. They often insist other countries be brought into favored projects(on our dime again), I gather in an effort to spread the wealth and disperse the science around the globe. And so it goes...

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !