The UK press are mostly tabloids. Most of the papers rival the National Enquirer for accuracy, objectivity and sensationalism.

If the authors are using the UK as a golden standard, their conclusions are fatally flawed. US and Canadian papers generally offer much higher journalistic standards.

Strange, that the Canadian and European media sources don't reverse the question and ask why they have taken sides at all? I'm not sure which media sources they've studied other than the ancedotal evidence of the article itself. The use of headlines to butress thier position only reinforces the notion that most AGW proponents are alarmists. For the AGW side the science is settled; it's only a question of how much we're going to fry.

As far as the Stern Report, I find it ridiculous that anyone would really take seriously a prophecy that is thinly based on science and economics. If I do remember, Drudge carried links to the Stern Report (links to the FT and Guardian) for a few weeks. More people go to Drudge than to the FT, Guardian, NYTs, and LA Times combined. I'm sure Drudge was never included in the study. Also, ALGORE and his Oscar winning performance as the modern day Jerimiah should be noted.

Media news sources are becoming less and less important in the US. The NYTs, WaPost, CBS, and NBC are all losing viewer/readership; most are losing money. What is interesting is that even thses progressive media outlets when compared to the European outlets are very conservative. Doom and Gloom just does not sell like it use to. You can only carry so many stories about AGW before readers lose interest. Here lies the rub: Most AGW predictions are so far out there (50-100 years) that you cannot possibly create the can of action that the IPCC and Kyoto regulators wish for. Consequently, you cannot scare the average American with such dire forecasts, when NOAA cannot even get its 15 day temperature forecast correct.

U.S. media treated climate change as an unresolved debate? You must be joking! The Al Gore Worshipers in the "unbiased" mainstream media are just as hell bent on putting through their agenda as the media is in Europe and the UK. Someone please show me a media outlet here in the USA that is presenting the skeptic/denier side of this waste of time issue in a fair fashion? Hate to tell ya, but it's mostly been one-sided slanted toward the alarmists! So ya could have fooled me on this one. Let me back track, though, and say that if U.S. media organizations are "watering down" their "cliamte change" stories, it must be because they are losing revenue in advertising because the public is avoiding their advertisers and is no longer buying into this nonsense.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!

P.S. Brett, after glancing at the article, and seeing it's origin, I am interested to know if this "Media Watch Dog" group is in fact a Canadian organization? No offense, my friend, but if it is, then I am not surprised, since Canada's politicos are on the bandwagon big time, like the Euros! And yet it's still God awful cold up there! (oops! there I go again, weather, climate, two different things! head shaking in disgust!)

This is very true. The media, and unfortunately, AccuWeather seems to fall into the same mold has portrayed Global warming as a debate on the scientific validity of phenonium. However, Global warming has been extensively studied and the science is clear. That is the Earth has warmed over the last 50 years and it is due primarily due to the emission of greenhouse gases. It is understandable that some may not like this fact. However, it is a scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the warming will continue along with related climate changes. Among these are increased precipitation and sea level.

What would make more sense is to acknowledge reality and then recognize that it is a matter of opinion as to whether this warming is a problem or not. However, to deny that the warming has occurred or is primarily due to human activities is wrong. Some may make such arguments due to ignorance while others may be doing so because of selfish intent.

Denying that Global Warming is primarily due to greenhouse emissions is essentially lying. What to do about it is a matter of opinion.

For example, I live 400 feet above sea level and far from the ocean. Should it matter if sea level increases another 10 inches during the rest of my life?

Also, my house is on a hill and not subject to flooding. So, why should I care if there is increased precepitation as long as my roof does not leak. I also do not pay for flood insurance.

Finally, where I live hardly ever gets much above 90F. So, why should I care if it goes up another 2F? In fact, I like summer weather.

I guess this contradicts the radical right's premise that the media is liberal.

When you get your news from shills like Drudge, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, Fox News, or squawk radio, then news outlets that don't editorialize the news and simply report it will seem "liberal" to you.

"What would make more sense is to acknowledge reality...."

Whose reality?

"Some may make such arguments due to ignorance while others may be doing so because of selfish intent."

The same could be said of your position.

"Denying that Global Warming is primarily due to greenhouse emissions is essentially lying."

Incredible. Nice to see you have taken the moral highground here. It's remarks and attitudes like this that make me question your position even more.

Andrew,

The purpose of this blog is to discuss the science and politics. You seem to want to cut off that discussion and accept the IPCC report as gospel.

Perhaps a bit ridiculous to take that position here?

Hilarious. So the mainstream media of the U.S. isn't doing enough to trumpet the hysteria of global warming. Okaaay, then what do they call the scare stories found almost daily and weekly in places like Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, even Sports Illustrated?...I could keep going, but you know 'em all. Actually, I find all the AGW antics very entertaining. Keep it up, please!

Andrew,

If it is so clear, please explain it in your own words. I have a decent understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics, so shoot.

How emasculating must it be to whine to the moderator about people who, for damn good reasons, don't agree with you. It is not a matter of opinion, there is NO SCIENCE behind AGW. You whiners keep announcing that it is real and keep whining about those of us who recognize that it is getting SLIGHTLY warmer but have been presented with ZERO evidence that it is caused by CO2 or CH4. None, you keep saying there is evidence but can never produce any. You are adept at pasting a link to a site that is very careful not to really say anything (IPCC).

You're nothing but a bunch of gullible broken records collected up by Al Gore & friends and issued orders to go whine the rest of us into submission. Well that ain't gonna happen. Whine whine whine as much as you like. "Awwww, it isn't fair, they don't agree with me so I better ask my mommy (government) to shut them up." "Awww it isn?t fair that I chose to live above sea level far away from an area that experiences hurricanes often".

You speak of all the facts but cannot explain these facts in your own words and rely on the IPCC which, honestly, is the biggest hunk of BS that has been written, except maybe surpassed by Marx.

You know, if it were a man who called me a liar for understanding science I would ask that man to explain himself. You, I won?t bother with because I'm sure to only get a response befitting a child.

Your parents must be very proud of your ability to paste links and call people liars because they demand PROOF that CO2 or CH4 is causing the SLIGHT temp increase we have seen in the last 200 years that followed a period of bitter cold.

I must say that the more I hear your excuses for no proof, your whining about deniers and consensus, and the repeated clueless exaggerations about Carbon the more I gain contempt for your ilk. It is much like a bunch of idiots trying to cram Jesus or Mohammad down the throats of BILLIONS of people. You don't even offer heaven or 72 virgins, all you have to offer is higher prices for everything and more control from government in a whiny tone. No thanks.

I must thank you though, if it were not for your constant whining I would have probably done little to let my friends, colleagues, family, and representatives know about the AGW BS. While I do not intend to silence your incessant whining, I do intend to keep our leaders from taking the advice of people who clearly do not understand science or economics well enough to dictate how I and many others shall live.

Good day,

Steve

Andrew; Your Opinion is noted. However, your assertion that the science is settled is just plain silly. Even the IPCC can't and won't make such bold statements. The science is sketchy at best and completley unsubstanciated by measurable evidence. If you have somehow managed to find some unquestionalble facts to support the THEORY of man made CO2 caused global warming, I would love to see it. Primitive computer models and Fraudulent hocky stick grafs just don't cut it with anybody that has more than a high school education. Just repeating it over and over again won't do it either. Perhaps you might wish to walk outside and lokk up. See that big yellow thing?

Andrew,

...the Earth has warmed over the last 50 years and it is due primarily due to the emission of greenhouse gases.

The phrase highlighted above in bold italics is where your problems lie. If, indeed, the earth is warming (and the temperature recording stations aren't misleading us), it has been warming for the last 150 years (or more). Why not point out that it has been warming for the last 150 years? Because it doesn't fit your template; ie, the warming is due to the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases?

As we have asked you and your fellow AGW zealots many times before, how about providing us evil skeptics irrefutible evidence that CO2 has caused the warming of the last 50 years?

/crickets chirping

Further to my request for some substantial proof of AGW, Aynone Want to make an easy $100,000.
Junkscience.com is offering anyone who can show proof One hundred Grand!!!. Should be a snap to Andrew or Mark or any of the Overwhelming number of scientest for whom the "Science is Settled".
Oh and just BTW, it the science IS settled, why in hell are we still paying them?

Andrew, "it is a scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the warming will continue along with related climate changes."

You want to talk science, so let's talk science.

It is scientifically proven that when you drop a ball we can accurately predict its path based on expected acceleration due to gravity, wind resistance, etc. Following the scientific method, this experiment can be reproduced by anyone and achieve the expected results.

I suggest you read up on the scientific method, try wikipedia.

AGW is a hypothesis and is NOT proven. We cannot conduct experiments get expected results and then perform the same test again and again and get the same results, there are just too many variables. Additionally, scientific method encourages full disclosure of experiment procedures so that others can attempt to recreate these experiments so as to validate them. Funny that the famous Hockey Stick data has not been made available for others to observe and repeat. Doesn't sound scientific to me.

Furthermore, they rely on computer models. Computer models are NOT OBSERVATIONAL evidence. They are only as good as the equations behind them. Add to that, they cannot predict past climate based on past data. Remember it must be repeatable.

I am not sure when we will ever be able to accurately and scientifically predict future climates, but I propose we start this process with an open and soundly scientific processes, not fitting the data to a preconceived theory and then hiding data. Shameful and pathetic, AGW will be exposed as a disgrace to the scientific process and community in general.

I guess this contradicts the radical right's premise that the media is liberal.

When you get your news from shills like Drudge, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, Fox News, or squawk radio, then news outlets that don't editorialize the news and simply report it will seem "liberal" to you.

REPLY: Oh, you mean like Dan Rather, eh Mark? The professor of Excellence in "Unbiased" Journalism 101! Don't make me laugh!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

The science is not settled. There is an ongoing debate over the AGW hypothesis; I wish the US media would recognize this, contrary to the claims made in the article. Of course, journalists are too often scientifically illiterate.

The UK papers are trash - any comparison to them is pointless.

Andrew - if you can prove the AGW hypothesis, please do so. This would surely win you a Nobel Prize and make you one of the most famous men on earth.

Mark, surely you don't believe that news organizations are in the business of telling the news unedited or uninfluenced? Whether it's Fox News, the Associated Press or CNN, they are in the business of journalism which is about putting your own slant on news. It's a highly competitive business and the "news" is the product that has to be marketed. Raw news tends not be very marketable.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that a media watchdog group is taking upon itself to be the role of Peer-reviewer??? Science at its best! Sheeshh...

"That is the Earth has warmed over the last 50 years and it is due primarily due to the emission of greenhouse gases."

Actually, the globe has been warming for 350 years -since the coldest decades of the Little Ice Age. The last era of global cooling occured between 1940 and 1976, and since 1976 global temperature rises have accelerated -the degree of which is hotly debated (no pun intended). Since 2004, the USHCN has adjusted past temperatures downward and current temperatures upward (Can anyone say Hockey Stick?). To complicate matters, the IPCC under estimates the UHI, while others have found many of the climate reporting stations do not follow WMO and NOAA standards.

So, while Europe and Canada accept the "science is settled" mantra, others - primairily in the US continue to do the due diligence that science demands. Regardless of the background chatter of the various media outlets, the science is far from finished.

JK,

Well said. Why provide proof when you can simply throw a tantrum and refuse to provide it. Funny how the debate is over yet no one has ever attempted to prove AGW. Instead they whine in very loud voices and form a collective in an attempt to convince those of us who are not so gullible that consensus should mean something to us.

This is not too hard to believe considering the bulk of AGW'ers, the liberal ones, believe in evolution yet do not believe in competition. They pretend to care for "less fortunate" people as long as they can convince our dear leaders to steal from all of us to help these poor souls, but would never donate to these same people simply on their own. They often whine about equal rights, but are as often attempting to get certain people special treatment. They pretend to adhere to scientific principles, but revere consensus and reject proof.

It seems they have a chronic case of the emotional part of PMS or bipolar disorder. Perhaps this is why they are often whining? BTW - I don't mean to demean people with PMS or bipolar disorder by comparing AGW liberals with them.

Conservative AGW'ers, in my opinion, simply agree out of not caring enough to look into it or are too stupid to realize what BS AGW is ( I know a couple of these personally :).

Regards,

Steve

Mark
When you get your news from shills like Drudge,....

Yeah, a real right wing shill. Let's see, over there right now is a photo of Prince Harry in his underwear, a link to the same extreme weather story as above on this blog, a story about Obama's wife not wanting to wear makeup.....I could go on but there is just nothing there that is taking much of a stance, left or right. Drudge is a headling dump that links all types of sources.

Fox does take an editorially right position but there news is quite straightforward.

Would you say that Keith Olberman and Chris Mathews are any less biased than O'Riley?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I take everything I see in the media as fact.

LOL

Whew, just about fell out of the chair on that one.

VERY SAD about the MINN bridge collapse but to prove the point about the media: isn't it just amazing that the media now tells us that there are a bunch of bridges across the nation that are in bad shape when two weeks ago, they barely knew what a bridge is? And I simply love how only THEY can tell us how to be safe on one and how the government is failing us in repairing the bridges.

They really are nothing but a bunch of ambulance chasers who ONLY care about how they can out-sensationalize each other.

Yeah I think Mark and his little friend Andrew need to explain the proven science behing GW like they like to preach. Nobody here with a clear mind believes this proven science so once again please explain to refresh our minds. Wow, so vitrual weather is a proven science? Science sure has changed alot now that we are so modern.

Run this through a search and you will find out how you are being moulded for AGW and why.

Malthusian I=PAT Equation

Dame Margaret Mead, who chaired a conference in November 1975 on The Atmosphere: Endangered or Endangering.

Mead, who carried a tremendous amount of high society and political clout through her husband, told the assembled scientists:

"The unparalleled increase in the human population and its demands for food, energy, and resources is clearly the most important destabilizing influence in the biosphere. We are facing a period when society must make decisions on an planetary scale. Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices: to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse throughout the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea, the whole planet may become endangered".

She further said:

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial, but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals which flee the hurricane"

Nice bunch of folks you've thrown yourselves behind, eh!

The BBC (bbb.co.uk) is not a tabloid. It covers lots of news outside the US and is easy to use. Reports on current weather are accompanied by video clips, pictures, maps/graphics, and other documentation. Weather information usually can be confirmed on the AccuWeather World site.

Peer-reviewed science has concluded that global warming is real and man-made by an overwhelming majority (not long ago over 12,000 qualified scientists complained about science manipulation by the current administration). It has been subjected to a variety of obscuring techniques in a campaign primarily initiated by companies and individuals that have a stake in the result. There's lots of informatio