Climategate in the Popular Media

[Admin]

Both papers, and in particular the New York Times have a recent history of ignoring stories that run counter to their editorial agenda and, when other media have addressed them to death, the paper finally relents but buries it somewhere in the classifieds section or other. Witness many recent versions of Czar-gate.

It's not surprising that the paper is hemorrhaging both subscribers and revenue.

[jamesdeluxe]

Both papers, and in particular the New York Times have a recent history of ignoring stories that run counter to their editorial agenda and, when other media have addressed them to death, the paper finally relents but buries it somewhere in the classifieds section or other. Witness many recent versions of Czar-gate. It's not surprising that the paper is hemorrhaging both subscribers and revenue.

Not that I disagree with the editorial poke at the NYT, but name one paper that isn't hemorrhaging money.

So, where do you get your news? And "all of them!!" isn't an answer.

[Skiace]

Late to the game and minor nitpick: I'd have to check my old notes to be sure, but I seem to remember that the majority of "clean coal" technology focused on reducing particulate pollution and nitrous oxides, as opposed to CO/CO2. So it's "cleaner" in the sense that it reduces local environmental impact compared to old coal plants, but doesn't do as much to reduce greenhouse gases. That's not to say there aren't plenty of people using "clean coal" as a buzzword to capitalize on the current trend towards cleaner energy.

And I think what Patrick was trying to say about petroleum and energy industry poll is that those companies do have their own people spending money to fund climate research in their interest. They may use those people to help lobby the public at times, but they also want to know the truth as much as anyone. If you are a large energy company that derives most of your business from fossil fuel harvesting/refinement/sale, then it's probably worth your while to find out if anthropogenic global warming is the reality.


edit:

Both papers, and in particular the New York Times have a recent history of ignoring stories that run counter to their editorial agenda and, when other media have addressed them to death, the paper finally relents but buries it somewhere in the classifieds section or other. Witness many recent versions of Czar-gate.

It's not surprising that the paper is hemorrhaging both subscribers and revenue.

Czar-gate, really? The only people freaking out over the appointment of "Czars" are the Glen Beck types, aka the same kinds of people that are seriously concerned that Obama wasn't born in the US.

[Tony Crocker]

I had to look up the term "Czar-gate." I'm inclined to agree it's a partisan issue. The party out of power always thinks the executive branch is trying to expand its power. The left was not exactly bashful in making these same charges against Bush from 2001-2008.

I would personally avoid attaching the "-gate" suffix to an issue unless it involves clear-cut corruption and/or lawbreaking. The existence of a cover-up is also a good indicator. Expanding government spending and bureaucracies doesn't qualify IMHO. And Obama is not exactly hiding his desire to expand the role of government. Climategate? Corruption and vigorous attempt at cover-up.

[Patrick]

Climategate? Corruption and vigorous attempt at cover-up.

What is the percentage of researcher involved? Stuff taken out of context probably. I'll try to post a reply to some of the points brought forward, but political discussion never end and I do have some work (plus I'm at work).

[Admin]

Stuff taken out of context probably.

Isn't that the standard-issue response for when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar?

[Patrick]

Stuff taken out of context probably.

Isn't that the standard-issue response for when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar?

I bet someone could find a good quote from Tony right here.

You're listening to Fox News too much admin, not good for the brain cells.

Climategate? I guess Fox News can't be wrong in their reporting too?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item ... nd-friends

[Admin]

Stuff taken out of context probably.

Isn't that the standard-issue response for when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar?

I bet someone could find a good quote from Tony right here.

You're listening to Fox News too much admin, not good for the brain cells.

Neither is the Kool-Aid that's affecting your objectivity. Just keep on drinkin', my friend.

[Patrick]

You're listening to Fox News too much admin, not good for the brain cells.

Neither is the Kool-Aid that's affecting your objectivity. Just keep on drinkin', my friend.

Too lazy to see the clip pointing out to Fox's good math logic?

[Tony Crocker]

Have lots of ready if Admin and Patrick are going to politics.

What is the percentage of researcher involved?

Not that relevant if it's key people at the center of the profession like Michael Mann and Phil Jones. And the number of people actually involved in running these computer models is fairly small. They like to keep it that way as we now know.

Too lazy to see the clip pointing out to Fox's good math logic?

I saw that on Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart is not likely to run out of material anytime soon with the amount of idiocy being spewed from all directions these days.

[Admin]

Have lots of ready if Admin and Patrick are going to politics.

No, I'm bored with this already. No point in trying to change the mind of someone who's lost their objectivity.

[Skiace]

I saw that on Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart is not likely to run out of material anytime soon with the amount of idiocy being spewed from all directions these days.

But the criticism of Fox News is more than just the usual media hype and pundit idiocy that makes up the bread and butter of Daily Show fodder. He rails on everyone for the general circus-act nature of cable news, but Fox seems to have a special talent for graphics "mistakes" and other inaccuracies that suggests an agenda. Patrick pointed out the most recent one, but within the last month or so they have twice showed canned crowd footage from large events/rallies when the event they were commenting on had a small fraction of that turnout. Then there were the numerous times they mislabeled republican lawmakers as democrats while reporting on the individual's sex scandals (yes that same "mistake" has happened more than once).

Not that any of this is relevant to a discussion on climate change however. I think "climate change in the popular media" is about as useful as "healthcare in the popular media" which is to say, almost completely unproductive and misguided.

[rfarren]

Fox news aside. There are many smart people, scientists as well as professionals, who have a healthy amount of skepticism in regards to the IPCC report. If we just look at the data and forget the politics and the media, the connection between man and global warming becomes somewhat less stated.

That being said, I dry-heaved today when listening to NPR talk about global warming, and man's connection to it,... and their wholesale buying into it.

[Geoff]

Fox news aside. There are many smart people, scientists as well as professionals, who have a healthy amount of skepticism in regards to the IPCC report. If we just look at the data and forget the politics and the media, the connection between man and global warming becomes somewhat less stated.

That being said, I dry-heaved today when listening to NPR talk about global warming, and man's connection to it,... and their wholesale buying into it.

I figure the climate modeling is done by the same people who can't predict the weather a week out and make hurricane predictions for big hurricane years when no hurricanes of significance happen. I can only conclude that our modeling technology isn't up to the task yet. I know for certain that the climate will change since it always changes. I don't think anyone knows with any certainty the relative impact of man on climate change compared to things like solar activity, meteor strikes, and volcanic activity. My wild-assed guess of the impact of man on climate is just as good as theirs.

That said, since we don't know it makes sense to try to limit the damage in the event that the manmade component is actually significant enough to dramatically impact climate change. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. It is fairly obvious to me that we need to start investing in scalable alternative energy sources. I'd put my bet on hydrogen. You can produce it from clean sources like hydro, geothermal, and tidal. You can then pipe it anywhere in North America. You can heat and cool your house with it. You can run your car on it. You can produce electricity from it. Nuclear also makes a ton of sense. Both technologies need some government help due to the Not-In-My-Back-Yard syndrome.

[Tony Crocker]

Not that any of this is relevant to a discussion on climate change however. I think "climate change in the popular media" is about as useful as "healthcare in the popular media" which is to say, almost completely unproductive and misguided.

I would certainly agree that it would be difficult to find useful info to form an opinion on climate change in the popular media. The primary reason for raising the "climategate in the media" topic was that due to political correctness I expected the mainstream media to duck the issue completely. Which they generally did for the first week or two. So I thought it was noteworthy to see the clip from Canada public TV, and I thought the other 2 clips had good entertainment value.

Now that the issue has some traction there is a varying range of responses:
1) Fox is all over it as it's embarrassing to their adversaries.
2) Washington Post is a rare example I've seen personally that at least in a news article is trying to play it down the middle. ABC Sunday News a couple of weeks ago had Paul Krugman being dismissive when George Will raised climategate as a serious problem. The "roundtable" format is useful IMHO as long as a wide range of views are represented.
3) NY Times and LA Times feel they can't ignore it, but are dismissive like rfarren's NPR reference.
4) I have heard that major network evening news is mostly ignoring climategate. I watch very little TV news so I could be way off here.