The UK press have been overwhelmingly AGW proponents. It is amusing when the Hysterics go into reverse psychology.

Yes, the 'threads' have been overwhelmingly contrarian, why not, the 'consensus' has been wrong time and again even when the claimed scientific evidence is 'overwhelming'. Why should this be any different. Scientists feel that the unwashed public should, by fiat, go along with their views.

The public is not as stupid as the 'academics' would like to believe.

The term "Quality Press" is an oxymoron. The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, etc. ARE tabloids. Collectively, they are known here as the "mainstream media." Their liberal bias has been well documented and since AGW is a liberal cause you won't find much objective reporting in these rags. People are moving away from print media in favor of the internet and these former news monopolies are losing their ability to manipulate public opinion. Their circulation is down dramatically along with revenues and their influence is waning.

I find it interesting that even with the full cooperation of these liberal information moguls, AGW has not been embraced by the majority in either the UK or the USA. Now, researchers are forced to do studies on the newspapers themselves and "grade" the level of scientific accuracy which only they, in their liberal arrogance, are qualified to judge. Al Gore is launching a $300 million dollar media blitz to "sell" AGW whose "science" has been widely reported to be "settled."

It's desperation time for the climate hustlers who have failed to convince us that we are responsible for catastrophic global warming. Their irresponsible promotion of biofuels as a solution has already caused the deaths of people who were just barely surviving. Add the millions who died from their demonization of DDT and these ignorant fools have a track record only Hitler or Stalin would envy.

They even admit it's all about influencing people's perception:
"There is a really deliberately contrarian tone to threads, and though this is part of the irony and cynicism - to the extent that this influences the public understanding and perception it is detrimental," said co-author Max Boykoff.

So, it's not a search for scientific truth, it's a campaign to control public perceptions.

There is no 'scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change'. The consensus is a much the fallacy as 'humans contribute to climate change'.

See:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx
&
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704

In a democracy, it is the role of the press to report all sides of a story - not just the official government consensus. The press in the UK, Canada and Australia have done a much better job than here in the US. Unfortunately, the US press has behaved more like Pravda - refusing to even mention that another point of view exists.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong

If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.

Richard Feynman

American Newspapers are trying desperately to sell newspapers.

Stories about people walking around the block do no sell newspapers.

Weather "forecasts" that say the weather will be about what it always is this time of year do not sell newspapers.

Stories abut life in the future that will be about like it was in the recent past do not sell newspapers.

By the way, when did words like "belief", "faith", and "consensus" become part of the mathematical lexicon, or is mathematics no longer the lingua franca of science?

If it turns out that a global cooling period began in 1998 and will last at least until 2015 or until the end of the natural 30 year cooling period about 2030 then the so-called quality press are the irresponsible ones for keeping us in the dark about these 30 year warm-cold natural cycles.

Epicycles!

Of course!

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2008/04/30/global-warming-goes-ptolemaic/

I would say pretty much that all media coverage of global warming has been in support of any measures to stop the climate from negatively changing. I guess you could then argue the other side of the coin and ask if the climate changes for the positive under these same global changes. I spoke with a person who's profession is working for an environmental arm of the government about global change. He absolutely believes the climate is changing rapidly as compared to any levels he has seen in the past 20 years or so. I was able to pin him down to the last 5 years of considerable change. When I asked him to be specific he pointed to some plant life that they monitor and have seen some of these plants stressed and altering the way the plant actually looks. So I made the argument that even if that is so there are many variables why some of these plants could be changing so much. We have been in a drought for a number of years, some plants/trees that have survived and done well have perhaps become too dominant in the area thus shading other plants or even the opposite dying and leaving the plants to get too much sunlight. During a drought bug infestation can get very out of control and also end up hurting the plant/tree population. An example in our area would be the Elm that use to be prolific and now is pretty much gone from this area. I would also point to oak wilt that has severely damaged the oak population. I respect this person's POV and the agency's observation, but I am still left believing that nature will adapt perhaps with plant species that can survive the global changes we are seeing. As long as man is living, we will be negatively impacting the environment. At this point, it would seem to me that focusing on population control would be better served since the perceived root cause of most environmental problems is directly related to people and their numbers and how they may stress the planet.

wrong again you tenured eggheads, its not the Tabloids, its the truth and the science that is convincing people AGW is a hoax...people arent buying into an agenda whereby the chief spokesmen are selling flawed movies, flawed data, wont debate publicly, and base all their theory on a faulty crystal ball computer generated fairytale that time after time proves it cannot predict the future three months down the road...its not hard to understand when people look out the window and find out that what Accuweather said about tomorrow fits better than what mr AGW said...just exactly who is going to believe a politician, while sitting on a couch holding hands with someone on the other side professing their new found AGW enlightenment then the next day scream and whine that the Saudi's and the president flood the market with bad co2 expelling oil...AGW is a house of cards without any scientific Ace of Spades supporting its foundation and the public recognizes there is no scientific consensus as purported...one can only conclude the blogosphere is doing a better job presenting the facts than the AGW pontificators...good job brett and tell mr big cheese at Accuweather i said hey!...have a nice day, bros...

Well isn't that a shame. Up to date most of the half-ass AGW studies and articles have been printed in "Prestige" (whatever) sources of "news" and Journals when they should have been printed in the tabloids where they actually belong.

I can see it now on the front page of "The Sun".

Elvis caught Shagging Madonna at Neverland Ranch
Human Induced Climate Change is Real, No really it is, Seriously
GW contributes to AIDS epidemic

The taboids would be a great place to have AGW studies "Peer Reviewed". Sadly I think more would be properly rejected by the "dumb masses" than the supposed experts in the field who pass them quid pro quo.

The AGW Method

1. CO2 causes Global Warming.
2. Humans create lots of CO2.
3. Write a paper about the Effects of Global Warming.
4. See Step 1.
5. Present your paper to one of the many groups created by Gub-ment or that are Gub-ment funded that follow the AGW Method.
5a. AGW Method Group signs off on paper.
6. Paper conclusively shows CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.
7. Apply for or more Funding.
8. Repeat procedure.

What does Brittany think about GW?

Does she think?

Who cares? The AGW Method was created to be fair so everyone can contribute to saving the planet.

There is a difference? Who knew. The whole of the coverage is mostly BS -- Relying on the fact that not many understand physics and chemistry.

Just today, 'scientists say' warming will take a hike while cooling takes center stage. As with the ice age scare of the 70s, which ended when the PDO shift occurred, the current warming alarmism will end now that the PDO has swung back.

No way to hide the cold.

It appears that my dissenting view with documented support did not make it past the Censors. Another dissenting argument in the ongoing debate is squelched.

GOOD!

"Do you think the "quality press" in the U.S. has accurately represented the scientific consensus?"

I'd say they've represented the consensus of their corporate masters who just happen to not only have a strangle hold on American media but also on American energy corporations.

Do you think the "quality press" in the U.S. has accurately represented the scientific consensus? I know many will argue that there is no real scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.

I will split it up to show how in my humble, well not so humble :) opinion.

Definitions:

Scientific: systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.

Consensus: majority of opinion.

Wiki definition: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time."
"Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method;"

I wonder what it is by itself? Obviously a scientist defined this :)

Wow, so it is a spacio-temporal judgment and/or opinion :) I can see why so many people are fond of it :) Teenage girls especially.

I love how it states "at a particular time" similarly to how Piltdown Man was the human missing link until 40 years later when the scientific consensus that held it so high found it was a fraud 39 years after it was discovered to be fraud by an individual :)

If one is to use science to determine whether opinion is accurate or exact, then proof can be found using the scientific method. Once the truth has been found consensus is no longer valid. Consensus was either correct or not.

After reading Wiki's definition again, AGW does not fit into Scientific Consensus anyway. It states:

"Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution."

Evolution is not controversial in the scientific community, AGW most certainly is. In fact, AGW is not science at all, if one cannot produce repeatable tests to show a conclusion, then it is either hearsay or fantasy.

I'm not sure that quality press exists anymore and find it humorous that a couple of folks from the "Environmental Change Institute" find very much difference between "prestige" sources and "tabloid" sources :)

“In the UK tabloid press, almost one third of this divergent coverage was attributed to the view that human contributions are negligible. Such a stance has been characterized partly
as ‘contrarian’ accounts and comments.”

So this paper is complaining that nearly 30% of the papers offer alternate and totally natural reasons why the temperatures have warmed a bit?
Oh yes that is contrarian…....different and possibly natural reasons. But, If natural how can we push an agenda involving guilt and social change as part of the "solution"?
How dare the readers get to think in 30% of the articles! It is obvious that no reader should be allowed to think independently from the authors and certainty of the IPCC.
No independent thought allowed in this great new world of AGW.
So when do the brown shirts come out, burn the books and papers of and imprison the contrarians?
Folks Please Read, Learn, Ask questions and Think for yourself. When dogma becomes more important than learning the truth, be scared…....be very scared.

Oh heavens, the press didn't all toe the party line on AGW, so they must be misinformed. This is a typical self-serving idiotic "study" that didn't give the results the authors wanted (like the Texas A & M study) so the public/press must be wrong. A waste of time and effort, since the authors went in with the "consensus" assumption and the arrogant idea that they were right. It is also an attempt to stifle dissent by accusing the press of doing exactly what the AGW censors do - simplistic. non-scientific arguments.

Perhaps the Alarmists have been too successfull. For 4-5 years the MSM, numerous research groups, PR companies, advertisers, blogs, cable channels, and think tanks have fought hard to get the most alarming new "study" or opinion on the headlines ot the market. Add to the mix such entertainments as An Inconvienent Truth, and The After Tomorrow and you have media overload. You can only predict Armageddon so many times before before people stop listening.

The air really started leaving the balloon with the publication of the 2007 IPCC SPM. It was just a tad too conservative, and it lacked the strength to serve as the final take down in public policy. But worst of all, its scenarios didn't quite jive the alarmists projections of AGW Spokesman ALGORE. ALGORE did get an Oscar and shared in the Nobel Peace Prize, but the Alarmists expectations were in the political realm and not entertainment. Since last summer, the general public yawned at new warnings concerning tipping points, melting ice caps, and disappearing winters. The Alarmists did give it a good try, but they made 2 critical mistakes: 1)They put all of thier apples in the extreme weather basket and 2)They became quite boring.

Junk Science, Drudge and Newsmax are tabloids. Those are the deniers' favorite publications.

I think most of the scamitists have done it to themselves.

How can you put faith in their predictions, when they have been so wrong on their solutions?

Anyone with any common sense knew that we were not growing any extra food.

To not even be able to predict what promoting bio-fuel would do,
shows how out of touch they really are.

But their very science demands that the rest of the world have faith in their common sense and predictions.

.

The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm

The extraction process at my friendly neighborhood Uranium mine uses baking soda to leach the Uranium out of the ground. Baking soda (NaHCO3) is one of the most unstable and prolific producers of CO2. Try mixing it with vinegar.

And remember "a little nukie never hurt anyone."

ECI is an organization who's sole reason for existence and funding is to generate concern about changes in the environment. As such, they are only interested in telling the truth in clear and honest scientific terms - as can be seen in their high quality publication here -

the world could heat up by about 5C till 2100. This is roughly the natural temperature difference between an ice age and a warm stage of our planet. Thus humanity would create an unprecedented "fire age".

global sea level would rise by 30-50 meters

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/downloads/pillars-wisdom.pdf

And also, this important report about greenhouse gas emissions emitted from rock stars.

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/musicindustry.php

67-83% is pretty good for a newspaper, especially a tabloid :-)

The big problem with GW is that it is being debated in the press. Normal science is done in scientific journals with not much interest from the general press. That's much better for the science. If you follow the newspapers on which foods are healthy/unhealthy you might have an idea of what I'm getting at here.

Science is not a democracy where everyone gets to vote, no matter how ignorant they are on the issues.

Science doesn't need propaganda to distribute the "truth".

Something that could change public perception is a new study out about the possibility of cooler ocean waters and ocean currents causing global cooling the next 10 years, offsetting global warming, it could change public perception, but it will be kept away from the public as much as possible because they don't want any doubt to enter the minds that have been brainwashed.

"Steve Rowland:
The UK press have been overwhelmingly AGW proponents. It is amusing when the Hysterics go into reverse psychology."

I was just thinking the exact same thing.

The AGW proponents were applauding and quoting the press
when the press was forwarding their agenda
when the press was reporting their hysterics

Now that their pet project - bio-fuel - has turned into a disaster

All of a sudden the press is bad and it's the press that's doing damage.

Brett,

The UK tabloid press is ***t, totally celebrity driven. That said I'm surprised that the report says they were 63 - 87 % accurate in their reporting of climate change stories. That seems pretty good to me, all things considered. Does Boykoff want 100% pro IPCC coverage; probably yes from what he says.

I take the Guardian and Independent every day, except Sunday (a paper free zone) and they are generally absolutely with the IPCC, the Independent more messianically so (although its just got a new edito