ROFL, what do you expect, you question the "consensus", so you are biased, possibly evil and maybe a bit stupid.

The Media seems to blame the common American Citizen for Global Warming and the warming of the Atlantic Ocean. Please note that the decade of the 1930's brought warmer temps and more natural carbon emissions that the present. Global Warming is just a term created to be bought & sold by scare tactics to increase our federal taxes. Hence, Al Gore. Despite what our International "Friends" say about Global Warming, do you think they will contribute to the so-called cause?

100 % percent correct ... I have never seen anything that I would call balanced reporting on the subject of GW. Their minds are made up & they don't want to be confused by the facts.

No doubt the media is extremely biased. Any half-baked alarmist paper written by a no-name grad student makes headlines on the BBC, whereas they refuse to even mention or acknowledge the thousands of noted scientists who want to tone the Chicken Little rhetoric down.
Here is the latest from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7220807.stm

Another example is how any accusation that GWB has "repressed a scientist" becomes a lead story for two days, but the frequent reports of misconduct by the IPCC go unreported.

And all the idiotic studies coming out recently about the suffering ski industry due to lack of snow, when the main problem is that there is too much snow to drive. How hard is it to go to snow.com and see if the idea makes any sense?

Brett,

Bias in the media is nothing new, looking back to the Revolution and Civil War periods as examples. In our current era Meteorologists seem to be the most level-headed of our local media, perhaps because they are better educated. We currently have something like 2 million scientists working in the US at least part-time on basic research and many millions more on applied sciences. It is no longer possible to consider oneself educated without some background in science whatever one's profession. Unfortunately, the whole of what is known has exploded over the past century so it is very difficult to achieve in some specialty and at the same time be liberally educated. I believe I speak for many in believing 'the Media' has fallen so far behind in this very criterion, that they no longer have anything positive to offer. As margins and profits are crashing they've become ever more desparately sensationalist.

I don't think there is any hope for the "Main Stream Media".

As long as it sees itself as an advertising medium that attracts eyes to the advertising best by using grocery store tabloid standards, we will have to look elsewhere for reliable information.

Academia is no better, in general since it is driven by essentially the same kinds of forces.

As in times past, the hard (all senses) information will come from the pamphleteers.

"The freedom of the press" is only important to a person that owns one and to the people that find a particular owner reliable.

For a while all of the reliable "presses" were copy machines and PC-attached printers (see China and Tiananmen Square), now they are laptops, PDAs, and other devices attached to the Internet with access to "blogs".

Brett,
I am a global warming skeptic, but I feel your blog has given a lot of information on both sides of the argument. I also feel that you stay nuetral and only rpeort the information.

Keep up the good work.

Jim from New Jersey

As a graduate of the NYU Science & Environmental Reporting Program (SERP 16 class), it's good to see an excellent professor - Dan Fagin - taking on a prominent role there. Newsday's loss. In the eight years since graduating, the global warming debate has certainly grown and thankfully become more nuanced.

In the scientific community, the pendulum has definitely swung back toward the center (where healthy skepticism resides), and away from the alarmist messages that the media somewhat blindly regurgitated. Unfortunately, in the political arena, only through the overzealous rantings of both extremes do we arrive at that center.

As always, the journalists stand as the gatekeepers - and to be effective, they must study and understand the science and be unhindered in their reporting. Progress is being made on the first requirement; continuing media consolidation remains a grave threat to the second.

Bias? In the media? Really? NO! Never saw that coming! In all seriousness, though, media and news companies used to train their reports and journalists to be objective. That doesn't happen anymore. As was evident by the Dan Rather debacle prior to the 2004 election, and Scott Pelly's comments equating Global Warming Skeptics as "Holocaust Deniers." The news media is a joke! And depending on who you people put in the White House this year, the Fairness Doctrine could be re-implemented, thus putting an end to alternative viewpoints to the mainstream "objectivity." I am certain Mark and BT would love to see that.

Save the planet from hot air. MUZZLE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!!!

Well that was a non story by a "Media expert"

He was so careful not to say a single syllable which which conflicted with consensus or majority
"reporting".

I can't wait for the second part.

Reporting of all types (not only GW) is suffering from the same disease called "Interpretive reporting"

What used to be hailed as professional journalism (facts: real and confirmed) has now been reduced to explaining to the "little people" what the news means. What is more astounding is that the journalism industry considers this as REAL and GREAT journalism. Clearly everyone can see that real facts and responsible reporting are the casualties of such elitism.

While some interpretations are honest and responsible, there are no assurances/requirements that all journalists have the same realism nor responsibility toward the readership.....only popularity determines their success.

For this reason, they resemble politicians in that truth and honesty is nice to have but not an obligation if you can "spin it better" for dramatic effect!

I thought Ms. Fehlinger did an excellent job on this one, and I look forward to the second installment. It seems that she and her team have taken the feedback that I and others offered here and tackled a tough and touchy issue head-on. I like that, and I congratulate her on it.

Since I've busted her chops pretty hard in the past, I want to be sure to also compliment her when I see a piece like this that I like.

Interesting report - thanks Katie!

There are several things observers of climate change should consider when the media inundates them with info:

1. Is it sensational? Claims of impending disaster will attract more readers/viewers than reports of normalcy. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the motto of the media. The reporting is not balanced but heavily skewed toward alarmist, disaster oriented speculation. Look at Al Gore's science fiction shockumentary or Hollywood's Day after Tomorrow movie. They were contrived to attract an audience and/or following. Forget the altruism, these are commercial enterprises.
2. Are the claims based on computer models or observation? Computer models are only tools used by investigators to try to discern what is happening. Claiming that a study shows evidence of climate change when that evidence is computer generated is not valid - file it away as interesting but not real. Examples: Mann's Hockey Stick, Hansen's seemingly endless supply of erroneous predicitions.
3. The MSM is overwhelmingly liberal in their thinking, who they vote for, and their philosophy of how we all should live. It is only natural for them to spin their journalistic efforts with a liberal mindset. Their livelihood is also dependent on readership and conformity to the political slant of the publications they submit their work to. If they don't tow the political line they won't get published in the majority of the MSM outlets.
4. Scientists rely on funding for their research. The current fad is AGW so it is only natural they will apply for grants in this field of inquiry. Many of the scientists conducting studies aren't even climatologists but they have to eat too.
5. Using science to promote a political agenda is being practiced with great skill these days. It's a case of the end justifies the means and politicians do it for votes and ultimate power while sincere environmentalists practice it out of a system of beliefs, most of which are based on a single, simple tenet: man is bad for earth.

The real world differs greatly from the world portrayed by the AGW alarmists. Don't let them scare you - think for yourself and challenge everything!

I'd say that media is biased in every field, basically because it is interested in ratings and to boost rating you get you topic as sensational and alarmist as possible. Media is for entertainment, not information. Looking at the science and going to tha actual reports, not media interpretations, shows a different picture. There are probably some scientists who worry about the extinction scenario, but I haven't come across them - I've come across plenty reporters, politicians, civil servants and econuts shouting "we're all doomed", but the scientific view is in the main there will be winners and losers. Fears of global pandemics and the emergence of some virus which will wipe out all higer life forms come in the same category. Lots of media panic, but not in the scientific community as a whole.

Part of the problem is that we have a helleva lot to learn and there are widespread uncertainties, so there will be areas of genuine differences in research.

There's also the problem, when people shout "Bias" that it means "You are biassed because you are expressing an opinion which is not what I think". Overall, I have gained the impression that accuweather has tried to highlight relevant information from sound scientific sources, including the differences highlighted by diferent studies, and I hope you will continue with that.

drama drama drama

it's hot - global warming

it's cold - global warming

it's not raining - global warming

it's raining - global warming

it's snowing - global warming

it's not snowing - global warming

the wind is blowing - global warming

the wind is not blowing - global warming

If you look daily at the GW news releases, they still use the words "settled science", "no doubt", "time is running out", and question the sanity of any person that disagrees with what is sold as a consensus opinion. I personally do not feel any bit smarter or secure knowing that most people believe that GW is man-made and that we can actually prevent it. So the fact that the masses buy into this hysteria doesn't make me want to do the same. Everybody, including the front-runner Hillary Clinton believed SH had WMDs. That should give people a moment to pause and think that maybe we are jumping to the wrong conclusions about GW too fast. The problem is that the GW proponents feel the end is near and so there is hardly any time to have a rational debate.

"End of World is Nigh!...News at Eleven"

Are you kidding? The media love the whole notion of global warming and its implications for catastrophe. Why give it any balance when the one-sidedness sells papers, increases viewership or listenership, or brings more visitors to your Web site?

nice interview Kate!

What I am seeing is a tale of two paradigms. One is the AGW faithefull and the willing media to promote and the steady growth of objecting skepticks (of many strips I might add). Bit even more telling to me is the actual weather news of recent month's say since May 2005 when the snows arrived to the NW states. Globally, AGW argument has been getting a good old fashioned but kicking from Global Colding events. Like Snow in Buenas Aries Argentina, Snow Events two winters in a row on high peaks of Hawia, Snow and cold in Middle Eastern countries, Jordans desert seeing impressive snows two winters in a row. Johanisburg South Africa got 18 inches of snow in one storm last winter. Texas was cool all summer 2006. Great video yahoo weather of snow in Jerusalem. The Sahara Desert is getting wetter and greener. Pakistan, India and Bangladesh suffering persistant cold spells for seccond winter in a row. Last summer in NYC and New England was delightfull with hardly any real heat waves like past years. China getting serious winter, worste in fifty or even a hundred years. Japan got hammered last winter with killer snow falls. Even now we have a wet winter in North America despite a Moderate La Nina...Australia getting several drought busting rain events over the last year....And, what has become evident is "Data Fixing" regarding temperature stats from collections sites impacted by urban heat island effects....skewing the overall climate data...to "Fit" the AGW theory......Media backpeddling? Thank goodness there are many brave souls speaking up and requiring the media to acknowledge that there is in fact Non-consensus happening. Truth is what science is about, all else is propaganda!

One of the things I've seen more recently is that whenever something weird happens in the world, it's automatically attributed to "human-induced global warming" as if there is 100% firm scientific proof that confirms it. When there are so many scientists out there who doubt the claims of the past 20 years of GW, and new data is beginning to show that perhaps the claims of the GW activists have been overstated or falsley made, it really makes me further doubt the reality of human caused GW. WHen you look at the people pushing the GW idea, look at their lifestyles. They are not practicing what they preach...not even close. They are energy hogs to the extreme, with big houses, private jets, and the like. If this was really a problem, then why the lavishness? This is a money-making scam in my opinion, because in GW fear mongering, there is a boatload of money to be made. Watch the fatcats get richer, and the rest of us get taxes into poverty. This is a class warfare program going on, and I hope people see what's happening before it's too late.

Hey! I've got a great idea. Let's have Obama and Hillary go tell China to cut back their coal usage, in order to stop the "out of control warming" which Hansen and Gore keep telling us about.

China's snow havoc results in losses up to 53.8 bln yuan... As of Jan. 28, the country had experienced a power gap peaking at nearly 40 million kilowatts as a coal shortage cut power generation at some plants, according to the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/01/content_7544075.htm

I'm sure they will be extremely receptive.

Who cares if it is or is not? Earth did not have this much pollution 200 years ago. Wouldn't it still be in our best interest if we tried to clean it up? Maybe this would bring down the number of health related issues such as cancer, etc?

David L.:

Congrats on graduating from the course, and I agree that journalists are the gatekeepers. In fact, I would go so far as to say that journalists are beyond that and nearly as powerful as governmental leaders on most topics, especially GW. Think about it, how often have we ALL heard a governmental official responding to, or acting upon, the reports of the media or some sort of poll? Who creates the need for the poll? The media. Just the very mention of a story lends it credibility and correcting it becomes a full time job. And then, is the media held accountable? Nope, they just claim to be looking out for us and that's OK isn't it?

I suggest that many of the world's most pressing issues would be solved quickly if it weren't for the media doing their "job". Oh, and I might add, there probably are not as many "problems" as the media thinks there is.

PaulB:

You are right on the money. The news is now pretty much dominated by several minutes of who was killed in dramatic fashion (if it bleeds it leads), a discussion of the sports, a usually crappy GFS portrayal of the weather (with of course their "3 degree guarantee!!!!"), and then a bunch of pieces on how they can help us and tell us what "we need to know". Sad thing is that many in our society have come to rely upon this as their sole information. This really has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You know what I find most troubling? The complete and utter lack of fundamental common knowledge often displayed by reporters. And this knowledge gap is across the board. I often find myself laughing at the reports since they are really just so incorrect from a knowledge or scientific basis.

When you are reporting on a topic based in Science, the ideal of "Consensus" reporting is foolish. Science deals in facts, and while the impacts all of the facts of Global Warming are not fully realized as yet, in rendering Judgment, not Consensus, the yardstick is Peer Reviewed Scientific Documentation. On the "negative" side of this issue, there isn't any, and to make judgments that rely on consensus is faulty.

For example, the conversation on the endangerment of polar bears was not based on science: the bears require sea ice in the arctic to survive; current projections state that the arctic will be clear of sea ice for a portion of the year. Ergo, the bear's survival as a species is endangered.

The news is not designed to be "Fair and Balanced" by nature: it is designed to investigate and knock the props out from under stories without basis. Is there a Peer Reviewed Scientific basis to support Global Warming? Overwhelmingly, Yes. Is there a Scientific basis to deny Global Warming? Overwhelmingly, No. Therefore any attempt to "level the field" between the two sides of this concept is specious.

The Media's Responsibility is report what IS, not what IS NOT. If there IS NOT Peer Reviewed Evidence to Deny Global Warming, then there is only one side until the negative side proves their thesis. This is NOT the job of the media; it is the job of SCIENTISTS.

It would be wrong to generalize but there is no doubt that the value press reportage has changed significantly over the past 30 years. In the UK it started with Murdock and the Sun newspaper and is finishing with the BBC turning news reporting into Harry Potter style reporting. The facts are distorted to create a sensational effect which the media believe will up advertising revenue, programme sales and attract the 'sun' reader. Yes there is a definate bias and a simple analysis of daily output shows it. In the global warming arena this has become absolutely noticeable. How? Well, there have been a number of significant studies in 2007 with have thrown up information for both sides of the argument both in measurement techniques as well as data analysis and scientific discoveries. I cannot remember one of the skeptic papers being reported in the main stream. Main stream means major news services for each country. None at the BBC at all. Bias? yes. Deliberate sometimes. Crass stupidity, frequently.

The BBC web site does not even acknowledge that there are differing opinions, and all of their articles assume without question that western governments can precisely control the climate (within a few tenths of a degree) through legislation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7223222.stm

BTW - I wonder why the global warming meeting is in Honolulu? They say that the Arctic ice is gone and that Siberia has gone tropical. Why not meet up north, if they really believe their own rhetoric?
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/24688/2008/1/2/MonthlyHistory.html

Island Chain Experiencing Winter Weather
OAHU (KHNL) -- Across the island chain, heavy downpours and chilly conditions.
http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=7793651

Wacky Wintry Weather Hit Hawaii A cold upper level low to the east of the state has created helter-skelter type weather, everything from hail on the Big Island to snow atop Haleakala on Maui