Climate change and media dishonesty

A fully paid up member of the climate alarmist society, Germany’s Spiegel has published a piece that tells readers ‘The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keeps going up and up, but public interest in climate change is sinking. Environmentalists are trying to come up with new ways to make the issue sexy.’

The problem for the ‘environmentalists’ is that the more people have learned about climate change and its supposed causes and effects, the more they have smelled a rat and seen that the claims have not matched the reality. Many people are smart enough to spot a scam when they see one. Those who allow themselves to be taken in tend to be those who desperately want to believe and ignore any evidence that runs contrary to their faith.

It is not just the deceit and dishonesty revealed by the leak of information that became known as Climategate that has seen global warming / climate change / global climatic disruption* (delete as appropriate) drop off the radar. It is the fact that blogs and social media are giving scientists who disagree with the AGW mantra a platform to explain why the alarmist claims do not add up. Perhaps that is why in their desperation the alarmists/warmists are becoming more open about their efforts to shut down the debate they previously claimed was over, and brainwash people with spin through the media. As the Spiegel piece makes clear:

A new kind of journalism: Climate activists have begun directing millions in funding into training programs for environmental journalists, with the goal of encouraging what’s known as “advocacy journalism.” This type of reporting is “pretty much dead in Europe,” says Markus Lehmkuhl, a media expert at Berlin’s Free University. British science journalist Alexander Kirby warns that journalists who remain neutral on the issue could endanger the cause of climate protection, but many of his colleagues refuse to take sides. The Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung, for example, fears that the line between science journalism and advertising could become blurred. Owen Gaffney, director of communications at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, advises that, rather than leaving reporting about climate change to the media, scientists should establish their own media outlets, preferably online. “We have more credibility than journalists and we need to take advantage of that,” Gaffney says.

This is clear confirmation of the huge financial resources that have been devoted to the alarmist cause and acceptance that shameful bias has been the order of things unofficially for some time. Just look at the vexatious BBC-Guardian axis, the New York Times, Spiegel itself and almost all African media and you will see naked bias through the omission of opposing views and the absence of any kind of challenge of the hypothesis. Big money and vested interests are trying to perpetuate a fraud using public money and resources.

While this is not news to anyone who has watched the climate change debate over the years, this unheralded transparency is valuable in that it proves to people the media is not in any way impartial or even handed. It is a propaganda tool that is trying to push an agenda on people while desperately trying to keep them in ignorance of the significant counter arguments. The truth is the media cannot and should not be trusted.

9 Responses to “Climate change and media dishonesty”


  1. 1 Barry 03/01/2011 at 10:12 pm

    They can advocate all they want so long as I’m not paying for it.

  2. 2 drewski 04/01/2011 at 9:28 am

    CO2 is a heat trapping gas — get your mind around that.

  3. 3 Autonomous Mind 04/01/2011 at 10:22 am

    Drewski, it makes up 0.0385% of the atmosphere and only 5% of that is man made. Just how much heat do you think it is trapping?

  4. 4 drewski 04/01/2011 at 10:42 am

    Currently an extra 1 watt per square meter

  5. 5 Autonomous Mind 04/01/2011 at 10:47 am

    Really? So why is it satellite temperature data is showing no discernable increase?

    Are you relying on data from the dramatically reduced number of temperature measurement stations around the world? Just wondering.

  6. 6 peter geany 04/01/2011 at 1:15 pm

    drewski You are my saviour, can you please provide me a link to this research? I have been searching for 4 years now for scientific data and proof that someone has managed to create an experiment that measures the infrared absorption of CO2 at 390ppm and can verifiably relate this back to an energy input back to earth.

    You see all the experts I have asked cannot provide me with a number for the real atmosphere. Yes yes we know what the theory is, but the real world is not playing ball and temperatures are not increasing, so either the theory is wrong, or all the temperature measurements are wrong or the atmosphere simply does not behave in the manner we think. Look forward to your answer

  7. 7 drewski 04/01/2011 at 3:12 pm

    The radiative forcings have been calculated for all the greenhouse gases as a function of their abundance. These calculations are done by computing the way the radiation at each wavelength is absorbed and reradiated at different layers in the atmosphere, until it escapes to space. The present radiative forcings of each greenhouse gas (compared to their greenhouse effects in pre-industrial times) are:

    * Carbon dioxide: 1.5 Watts per square meter.
    * Methane: 0.5 Watts per square meter.
    * Nitrous oxide: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
    * Halocarbons: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
    * Total from all greenhouse gases: 2.4 Watts per square meter.

  8. 8 peter geany 04/01/2011 at 5:13 pm

    drewski No No No you do of course know that the absorption rate for CO2 is logarithmic and that it decreases with concentration, and that most infrared radiation is absorbed by the first 30ppm. Ten times the concentration at 300ppm does not give ten times the absorption, in fact it’s not even double, so going from 280ppm to 390 adds very little additional absorption, ummm. So how can you offer such an absolute figure? I thought you were going to give me the name of the scientist who has measured this.

    Anyway I’m intrigued at your use of the word “all” to describe your list of greenhouse gases. Funny thing is my research tells me the vast majority of the “so called but misunderstood” greenhouse effect is due to water vapour. Some say as much as 95% but the exact figure is not really known as we can’t measure it. And water vapour is a tricky substance as it can instantly turn to water (cloud) which can stop radiation reaching the earth in the first place. Tricky stuff ehh.

  9. 9 klem 04/01/2011 at 6:02 pm

    Dear Drewski

    According to Wikipedia “When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are: water vapor which contributes 36–72%, carbon dioxide which contributes 9–26%, methane which contributes 4–9%, ozone which contributes 3–7%.”

    So WikiP says that water vapor is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect, not CO2. And that does NOT include clouds. When you include cloud’s contribution to the greenhouse effect, Wikipedia says “When considering water vapor and clouds together, the contribution is between 66-85%.”

    You intentionally omitted water vapor in your GHG radiative forcing in watts/m2 list. Why did you do that?


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive


%d bloggers like this: