Tuesday
Nov162010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill WSJTV on the AGU balance
Nov 16, 2010 Climate: Sceptics The American Geophysical Union is putting together a bank of scientists to advise journalists on global warming. Anne Jolis of the Wall Street Journal wonders why it doesn't appear to include any sceptics.
Reader Comments (24)
I take it that journalists don't do much investigation these days?
I guess the APS could also provide a one-sided bank of scientists to advise journalists on global warming.
Ross is right. There are two sides to every story. Are journalists no longer allowed to figure out for themselves who to contact for information on both sides of any story?
Most journalism these days (and this isn't restricted to CAGW reporting either) appears to consist of uncritically cutting and pasting material prepared by groups with vested interests.
The AGU abandoned science when they officially declared that the earth's climate "is now clearly out of balance." Their statement implies that there is or even can be such a thing as a "balanced" climate. What hogwash!
The earth's climate has never been "balanced." Over the past six billion years, global climate has varied widely, becoming significantly warmer and colder than in recent millennia. At what point do the solons of the AGU hope to balance it? And how?
Here is Noam Chomsky calmly explaining to the BBC's chief political correspondent Andrew Marr that all the senior journalists he has known have admitted that they had to write and broadcast what they were told by management. They had no independence. Chomsky is of the opinion that (nowadays) no one with the intelligence or integrity to look for the truth would ever be employed as a journalist.
Andrew Marr vs Noam Chomsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1LU4obkBmw&p=00B66338181AF8B3
Because its a band of SCIENTISTS? And not, you know, a bunch of retired whatevers.
"...a bank of scientists to advise journalists on global warming."
A moment ago, I read a commenter at WUWT who referred to "climate pscientists". I reckon nearly everyone here will get his point.
Ah, I recall that he was commenting on a report of an attempt to revive the melting Himalayan glacier scare. The study was led by...a sociologist.
woodentop has a good point.
I spent several years on and off as relief editor for a local paper and the usual question I got when I phoned for a comment was "Didn't you get the press release?" Well, yes I did, which is why I'm phoning to ask for clarification of a couple of the more self-serving and dubious arguments you made (I phrased it more tactfully most of the time!).
"We have no further comment to make." Fine, I'll use my own judgment. Occasionally I would get a call asking why didn't use a release and sometimes even "if you don't want them we'll stop sending them."
Promises, promises!
What's the collective noun for a group of scientists?
A consensus.
David S and Anoneumouse
I really think that the answer is a
CON-sensus
Peter Walsh
No, it cant be consensus.
International fascism was a consensus
A CONspiracy of scientists.
Or a proxy of scientists.
Q: What does one call a collection of scientists?
A: Probably significantly wrong.
A dollar of scientists? I do prefer the Olde English: an argument of scientists. English is peculiar in the way it evolves - never settled. Unlike science itself which when settled, can never evolve.
Back on topic, that Ann Jolis was decidedly off-message from the AGU press-release. There is probably some more Olde English in use at the AGU right now.
I wonder how and who made the list. I am a member of the AGU and nobody asked me.
It's the problem with these big societies, they use a very large membership in support of the managers point of view, but they never bother asking their members about their opinions. Same with big government
What's the collective noun for a group of scientists?
Answer: Groupies?
John
Nov 16, 2010 at 6:07 PM | woodentop
Most journalism these days (and this isn't restricted to CAGW reporting either) appears to consist of uncritically cutting and pasting material prepared by groups with vested interests.
-----
The same way a large proportion would have obtained their degrees?
Dr. Roy Spencer responded to the news:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/11/climate-scientists-plan-campaign-against-global-warming-skeptics/
A Fundscam of scientists?
1) JournOLists in America are just that - JournOLists - the sole purpose of which is to keep good stories flowing about Obama.
2) JournOLists don't care about the truth. It's Obama then Liberalism. Whatever forwards those two topics will be written or reported on. Anything else is not worth letting the public know.
3) The good news is that in America, the Chicago carbon trading scheme had to shut down. Too many people were learning about Climategate. Not making enough money. So, despite Liberal JournOLists, the word is getting out.
4) If you want this crap to stop, NEVER EVER buy, subscribe, click, watch or read Liberal Media. They're feeling it in America - the Liberal newspapers which dominated for decades are in dire financial straits and laying people off/reducing their paper size. The ratings for Liberal TV news is plummeting. Advertisers are gradually leaving as they realize they aren't reaching people.
5) The alternative is that you can continue to support the Leftwing media and help them tell you how stupid, irrelevant and dangerous you are.
i've commented on the topic - A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response, which i believe should be:
“A Discussion on Anthropogenic Global Warming: the Science and the Evidence”
because we all know the climate changes, and we don't need any "response" until the "evidence" proves the hypothesis. as for why the word "rational" came into it, who knows:
15 Nov: Judith Curry: Uncertainty gets a seat at the big table: Part III
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- SCHEDULE NOTICE -
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment – Hearing – Witnesses Added
A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
Panel I
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences
Dr. Heidi M. Cullen, CEO and Director of Communications, Climate Central
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl, Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Panel II
Dr. Benjamin D. Santer, Atmospheric Scientist, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Dr. Richard B. Alley, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Geosciences and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Richard A. Feely, Senior Scientist, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute
Panel III
Rear Admiral David W. Titley, Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy, United States Department of the Navy
Mr. James Lopez, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Mr. William Geer, Director of the Center for Western Lands, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.2325 Rayburn House Office Building (WEBCAST)
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/15/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-big-table-part-ii-2/
bish -
firstly, congrats to u and Tony Newbery for an excellent submission to the BBC. richard black is now online, u get mention in the comments.
my LOLs:
16 Nov: BBC: Richard Black: Copenhagen or Babel? A climate conundrum
A little less than a year after filing into the frozen wasteland of Copenhagen's Bella Center, we're looking this year to the sunnier climes of Cancun in Mexico...(LOL)...
And what of "Climategate", the heat surrounding the batch of e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit immediately before the (COPENHAGEN)summit? (LOL)...
Yet the fundamental reason for reporting climate change - because it threatens major changes to our lives, and the prospects of future generations - endures...(LOL)...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html
richard needs to argue the case for AGW and stop the "climate change" nonsense. that would be a positive start.