An Inconvenient Video from COP-15 (2009) featuring DeSmog Blog’s Brendan Demelle. This video was deemed soooo compelling by viewers that in the two years it’s been posted it had a whopping nine views when I scrounged it up from the YouTube dustbin. An excerpt from Demelle discussing the state of journalism, and the rise of bloggers:
“…with the struggling economy which is hurting newsrooms there just aren’t as many resources to devote to deep investigative journalism than there used to be, and I think that’s why you see a rise in citizen journalism, people taking it upon themselves to go and try to figure out what the facts are and to report the facts. Also, you know, one of the things that Danny mentioned is that journalists are, you know, taught to be objective and not to have a view. I’d just say that you’re also taught to report facts, and not lies and misdeeds….”
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy.
I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.
You sure about that Mr. Gleick? Certainly the letter came in an envelope. Certainly that envelope had a dated postmark indicating the post office that received it. And certainly this postmarked envelope could possibly help defend yourself against the accusations that you produced the “Fake Memo”. So if it did indeed come anonymously, wouldn’t any prudent person including you save the envelope? Of course you would. So please provide us a copy.
Also, Mr. Gleick, can you please tell us whether or not there was any accompanying cover letter in the envelope? If so, surely you have that document too. Please provide us a copy of that too, please.
Peter Gleick, February, 2009, in a piece accusing the Heartland Institute of cherry-picking data to show a supposedly non-existent recent cooling trend:
Their irresponsible actions in this cherry-picking exercise substantially diminish even further Heartland’s claim to be any kind of honest broker of serious scientific skepticism on the topic of climate change.
DIVORCE adds to the impact of global warming as couples switch to wasteful single lifestyles, Family First senator Steve Fielding says.
He told a Senate hearing on today that divorce led to a “resource-inefficient lifestyle” and it would be better for the planet if couples stayed married.
When couples separate, they need more rooms, more electricity and more water, which increases their carbon footprint.
“We understand that there is a social problem (with divorce), but now we’re seeing there is also environmental impact as well on the footprint,” Senator Fielding said.
The senator has now changed his tune, and even went half way around the world to DC for The Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change to marinate himself in some healthy skepticism. Fielding has changed his tune, saying at the conference:
I suppose I’m in the camp of what people call the realists or the skeptics.
Isn’t there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really. There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that were causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928…Zero.
Well, Gore lied about that. But, that’s nothing new.
It’s GORE LIED’s contention that “peer reviewed” usually means liberals rubber-stamping the biased studies of other liberals – because, like education and journalism, the field of science is a liberal magnet.
So, what’s going on here? Well, of the 61 studies in this first of three parts, only one was published prior to 1990, only ten were published between 1991-2000, and fifty of the studies were published after 2001. I guess the “peers” can only put their finger in the dike for so long until they get inundated with a flood of studies contradicting Gore’s claims.
It’s often been said that climate science is in its infancy, but it appears that the godfather of anthropogenic global warming, Al Gore, has put climate science on a trajectory toward adolescence, and the science is behaving much like any rebellious adolescent would.
Al Gore: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...."
Grist Magazine (May 9, 2006)