Why Are Reporters So Gullible?

The London Telegraph ^ | Nov 11, 2007 | ReasonMcLucus

[TigersEye]

In Post 47 above, you said that CO2 is "at its lowest in earth's history." Now, you say: "There has been a consistent and steady rise for 18,000 years."

Unless you think the earth's history is only 18,000 years old both statements are consistent and have no conflict.

[Gondring]

Unless you think the earth's history is only 18,000 years old both statements are consistent and have no conflict.

Huh?!?

Please explain how the CO₂ levels more than 18,000 years ago can--no matter what they were--somehow make today's levels lower than they were 18,000 years ago. We are obviously not at the lowest point, no more than you can be at the coldest part of the day if the temperature has been rising for the past hour.

[null and void]

“God, just let me be the first to know something for once in my life.”

I have been on several occasions. It is a very heady experience...

[TigersEye]

You must have missed the chart here. Look at the levels 300 million years ago. That is part of earth's history too.

[mdh8b]

Well respected critics of global warming doomsday scenarios still believe that humans are warming the planet, they just question whether the situation is as grave as the media and many politicians have made it out to be.

Kudos to Gondring for hanging in there.

http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/michaels.shtml

I go to UVA and Professor Michaels wrote this influential book “The Satanic Gases” Here’s a quote from the review:
“Climatologist Michaels acknowledges that the earth is warming because of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but he insists that the warming will probably be modest and that nature and humanity will easily adjust to it.”

[Cracker Jack]

Yes, but they are also: On average, 1. not terribly bright, 2. not intellectually curious, 3. poorly educated, 4. narcissistic, and 5. careerist/conformists

I have come to believe that if the people that go into journalism could understand numbers, they would have chosen a different line of work. I place little stock in journalist's opinions that are based on numerical input.

"journalist's opinion"--I caught myself using an expression that wouldn't be used in an ideal world. With a competent journalist, their personal opinion should be undetectable by the reader.

[TigersEye]

Far more well respected climatoligists think AGW is total horse hockey.

[Bender2]

Re: Why Are Reporters So Gullible?

Gullibility has nothing to do with it... 99% of the MSM reporters are willing accomplices and lockstep cohorts to the Liberal Democrats!

The other 1% work at the Fox News Channel.

[Inyo-Mono]

After 12 years in print media and nearly 20 in radio, I’d say you hit the nail on head with all points.

[nickcarraway]

Is this a trick question?

[mdh8b]

Name one. Your game is weak.

[mdh8b]

Did you even go on Amazon and read what the book says? Michaels is a libertarian, and for most of the book he derides the fearmongering and falsification that we often see in the media surrounding this issue. He has been criticized by liberals for being connected to oil money, but his science is well founded and is even more well regarded now than in 2000 when he first published his book. Back then, Michaels hypothesized that most warming would occur at the poles and in northern lattitudes. This is because the air there is dry and the frozen surface creates an albedo effect. Thus, dry air = low heat retention due to greenhouse effect (water vapor is a major greenhouse gas) and frozen surface = low heat retention (snow reflects sunlight). Michaels wrote “Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming” 7 years ago. His predictions have been proven correct. Almost all of the warming we’ve seen has been at high latitudes, in Siberia and at the poles...places where the greenhouse effect would otherwise be low, and CO2 can make a difference. (he predicted that we would not see much warming at lower latitudes for multiple reasons including the limiting albedo effect of clouds, cooling effects of oceans, and the asymptotal limit associated with the finite supply of energy in the sun’s rays that can actually be trapped.) You were very correct to mention the fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the past. Michaels mentions this, and points out that even during its warmest periods, the Earth’s surface temperatures at any given place were never much hotter than modern day Florida. The “average global temperature” was much higher, but mostly because of the temperatures at high northern and southern latitudes: there were tropical rainforests at the poles. Read the comments on Amazon, Patrick Michaels is lauded by libertarians and conservatives. For years he has been a voice in the wilderness saying “global warming is not going to be the end of the world” Something I think we all can agree on.

[MarkL]

I once heard a quote from a "journalism" student in an interview. Her reason for getting into journalism was "to make the world a better place." I was stunned, but it puts everything into perspective.

Mark

[TigersEye]

Your game is over.

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears