8/19/11, "AP crams three misleading assertions about global warming into a single paragraph," American Thinker, Reporting upon presidential candidate Rick Perry's skepticism about man-made global warming, the Associated Press has just published the following passage, which is now being circulated by more than a hundred news outlets that are carrying this story:
From reading the above, one might think that very few scientists doubt the concept of manmade global warming, but this narrative is undercut by 3,805 atmospheric, earth, or environmental Ph.D. scientists who have signed a petition stating:But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. Perry's home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide - the chief greenhouse gas - than any other state in the country, according to government data.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
As the petition's organizers point out, these are scientists "trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment." A few days ago, PolitiFact attempted to dismiss this with the wave of a hand by declaring that the "petition has been criticized for not checking the credentials of its signatories or proving that the signatories exist." However, PolitiFact does not provide a speck of evidence to substantiate this claim, which is dubious, to put it mildly. There were a few problems of mistaken identity in the past, but these have been corrected. As explained by the credentialed scientists who administer the petition:
Petition project volunteers evaluate each signer's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list. ...
Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.
Moreover, the website of the petition lists the names of the individuals who have signed it. Thus, if what PolitiFact says is true, these fact-checkers should be able to cite the names of some Ph.D. signatories who don't exist, or whose credentials are erroneous, or who are demanding that their names be taken off the petition.
- by making an unsubstantiated allegation.
Getting back to the Associated Press, twice in the paragraph above, the word "pollution" is used in reference to carbon dioxide (CO2). The trouble with this choice of verbiage is that when most people hear the word "pollution," they think of scenarios like cancerous soot billowing from
- smokestacks or toxic chemicals
being dumped into waterways. In stark contrast, CO2 is a fundamental part of Earth's ecosystem, and natural emissions of CO2 outweigh man-made emissions by a factor of twenty to one. To cite academic literature, carbon dioxide:
- is "integral to both respiration and acid-base balance in all life,"
- is "an essential part of the fundamental biological processes of all living things," and
- "does not cause cancer, affect development or suppress the immune system in humans."
This is hardly the kind of substance one thinks of when hearing the word "pollution." In fact, carbon dioxide is a desired output of automotive catalytic converters, which the EPA describes as an "anti-pollution device" that converts "exhaust pollutants ... to normal atmospheric gases such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water." What's next, calling water a pollutant? Water vapor, by the way,
- contributes far more to Earth's greenhouse effect
- than CO2.
Journalists would likely respond that they are only following the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling (decided 5-4) that CO2 could be regulated under the pollution provision of the Clean Air Act, but these reporters are not writing for an audience of legal professionals-they are writing for the general public. Journalists are fully aware that the word "pollution" conjures up certain nasty images in the average person's mind, but yet they use it without regard for whether these
- images are misleading.
Finally, when the AP reporters label Texas as the worst CO2 emitter in the nation, they omit the fact that Texas is also the second most populous state, and on a per capita basis, it is not first but thirteenth in the nation for fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
Furthermore, certain states like California with lower CO2 emissions have quashed the development of power plants but buy a good deal of their electricity from other states that generate surpluses (such as Texas). Thus, "environmentally friendly" states are
- outsourcing their CO2 emissions to neighboring states
- as if this were the responsible thing to do.
In this case of dueling global warming rhetoric, it is not a politician but journalists who are out on a limb scientifically. They'd do the public a service and their own credibility a favor by crawling back closer to the root of truth."
=========================
Legitimacy of AP's side? How about the originator of the Polar Bear hoax was "peer reviewed" by his wife, the siting was never intended to prove 'global warming' to begin with, and polar bear images have been used to steal irreplaceable time and efforts out of a generation of humanity?
Then there are clowns like so-called GOP consultant Frank Luntz, a roaming parasite who sells himself to the EDF, telling them how to fool middle class, right of center Americans into buying global warming. He doesn't mention it makes billions for organized crime, investment banks and the UN. And Frank Luntz. Many on the left know the "climate" industry is fraudulent, but they'll never give up on it. They see it as their best chance for "social justice."
Reference: 1/21/10, "Frank Luntz On How To Pass A Climate Bill," The New Republic, Jesse Zwick
Luntz said you can sell it if you use the right words. His presentation is also sponsored by News Corp., (Fox News) per its title page. From the summation page, Jan. 2010:
- "it’s not what you say
- it’s what people hear""...
----------------------------------------
8/11/11, "Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe," Human Events. Audrey Hudson
----------------------------------------
- 6/28/10, "Getting Help from the Press," Gloucester Times, Nancy Gaines
The official purpose of the October 2002 gathering of the
- Pew Charitable Trusts marine fellows was to train the scientists in the ways of the media, the better
- to market their message.
"Learn how to navigate the stormy waters of the media," read the description of one Bonaire workshop. "Packaging your message is a key to success — whether talking to the media,
- submitting a paper to Science or Nature (magazine), writing a grant proposal, or writing an op-ed for your local paper."
But it wasn't all business.
The workshops were followed by "barside discussions" as the sun-soaked setting setting- blurred the line that usually separates reporters and those they cover. So, too, did it blur the line between trainers and trainees.
The scientists being trained on Bonaire had a ready pool of journalists on which to practice what they were learning about working the media. The list of reporters invited to Bonaire was a
- who's who of science journalism: Cornelia Dean of the New York Times, Natasha Loder of the Economist, Charles Alexander of Time magazine and Tom Hayden of U.S. News and World Report, among others.
Dean told the Gloucester Daily Times her trip to Bonaire was paid for by Pew, the powerful nonprofit that uses its multi-billion-dollar endowment to steer public policy on the environment and other issues.
- While the New York Times has strict standards against junkets, Dean said, an exception is made for "teaching," and that's what she was doing in Bonaire.
- "My goal was to help scientists to speak more clearly to the public," she said.
Another notable scientist on Bonaire was Daniel Pauly, the author last year of "Aquacalypse Now: The End of Fish," and
- a professor whose fisheries center at the University of British Columbia has received some $15 million from Pew.
Pauly is a longtime prophet of doom for commercial fishing.
In a 1998 article he co-authored for Science magazine, Pauly predicted that rapacious commercial fishermen would work their way down the marine food chain — eliminating predator fish such as tuna and swordfish, then setting their nets for the bait those fish feed on. In the end, nothing would be left on the menu but "jellyfish and plankton soup."
'Fished Out'
The Bonaire conclave is just one example of the symbiotic relationship that has developed between
- environmental advocates and scientists and some of the
- big-media journalists who cover them.
The journalists are wined and dined by the advocates
- and hired to train the scientists to use the media to advance their message.
The journalists, in turn, call on those same scientists as sources when writing about the advocates and their agenda.
- In June 2003, eight months after Bonaire, Tom Hayden warned of the cataclysmic consequences of overfishing in a cover story for U.S. News and World Report,
The story, "Fished Out," quoted 13 different concerned scientists and citizens coming to the same awful conclusion: Jellyfish might one day be fishermen's only catch.
Although Hayden was virtually unknown in commercial fishing circles,
- his story had the potential to influence the American public's view of the fishing industry.
Hayden did not mention to his readers that, of the 14 sources he quoted for the article, 13 received their funding directly or indirectly from Pew, as Pew fellows or the recipients of Pew grants. The 14th was a restaurant chef.
- Hayden's Pew-connected sources included Pauly, the godfather of the jellyfish scenario, and Jeremy Jackson, a Scripps Institution of Oceanography ecologist.
Both Pauly and Jackson were on Bonaire with Hayden, who did not return several messages for comment on this story.
- In fact, Jackson was on the agenda to go snorkeling with Hayden. Hayden's U.S. News and World Report cover story quoted Jackson on jellyfish:
"Jellyfish have become a commercial fishery in many places," Jackson says, "because that's all that's left. That and the bacteria."
- Hayden also quoted Jane Lubchenco, now head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the parent agency of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
'Frame their messages'
Lubchenco, a Pew fellow and mentor of many other Pew fellows, wasn't on Bonaire. But she appeared in a PBS-produced film shown at the event titled "Empty Oceans, Empty Nets," another cautionary tale of overfishing, funded in part by Pew.
- Lubchenco for years has urged her fellow scientists to become activists in the debate over issues like global warming and overfishing and
- to help shape public policy through the media.
In 1997, as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Lubchenco called on fellow scientists to
- join her in a new "social contract."
Scientists must promote their ideas to politicians and the public in order to create a world that is "ecologically sound, economically feasible and socially just," she argued.
- A year after the speech, Lubchenco founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program to advance her activist vision.
The program trains chosen scientists in "talking points" to use with the media and other nonscientific audiences, according to its website. Through "role playing and small group interactive exercises,"
- the scientists learn how to develop "specific, appropriate messages to stakeholders."
- reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post and National Public Radio, as well as leaders of environmental groups and
- White House and
- congressional staff members.
Lubchenco also helped organize two groups with a similar mission, SeaWeb and the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea — COMPASS.
- Lead trainer for all three advocacy groups — Aldo Leopold, SeaWeb and COMPASS — is Nancy Baron, a zoologist and former science writer.
Baron has boasted to colleagues about her success in manipulating the media message — and the media.
- In a 2005 e-mail — a copy of which has been obtained by the Times — she cited an article in The New York Times, and wrote:
- "We worked with these scientists to help them frame their messages and talk about their study so it resonates with the wider public. Note their quotes in particular which are not just off the top of their heads ..."
- The infamous mixer was a cocktail party hosted by COMPASS for members of the Academy and the press.
The networking that links activists and journalists was fully on display in the Washington Post story that broke the news of President-elect Obama's decision to nominate
- Lubchenco as head of NOAA in December 2008.
The story was written by the Post's environmental writer, Juliet Eilperin, who has been both a panelist and participant in COMPASS events.
- Eilperin cited "several sources" for the scoop and quoted one in praise of Lubchenco: Andrew Rosenberg.
- Rosenberg is also a former high-ranking NOAA official who
- now runs an environmental consulting company that has obtained
- more than $12 million in NOAA contracts in the past decade.
Last fall, Lubchenco made him a White House consultant on ocean policy."
---------------------------
Married to the mob, the Washington Post's 'environmental' "reporter" Juliet Eilperin is married to Center for American Progess 'Climate' Specialist Andrew Light whose work at CAP's Global Climate Network is
- patronized by wealthy UN climate boss/lobbyist/steamy romance novelist,
- Fittingly, Eilperin hubby Mr. Light's resume says he's an
- expert on 'ethics.'....
------------------------------------
2/21/11, "Hackers target European carbon registries," USA Today, B. Acohido
7/16/10, "Carbon Trading Used as Money-Laundering Front," Jakarta Globe
10/25/10, "Queen set to earn millions from windfarm expansion," UK Independent, Andy McSmith
12/13/10, "‘Perverse’ CO2 Payments Send Flood of Money to China," by Mark Schapiro, Yale Environment 360
.
.
