File this under “seriously?”

Yep, seriously.  When it comes to global warming, the media is too balanced.

The story starts here:

Gore says media miss climate message-  Journalists have leaned toward balance at expense of consensus data, he says

Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation’s single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

I have no doubt that is accurate as far as it goes.  I have a few notes though.  First he did not say ALL  peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists.   He said that essentially all of them did.  Two things.  How many, what percent is the basis for “essentially?  What ratio?

And second, remember what Peer Reviewing is?

Peer review  (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general.

So here is my question:  How many non supportive articles successfully pass peer review when the consensus defending “peers” are likely to find flaw with the non supportive authors?  Likely very few.  How many are even submitted?  Likely very few.  So isn’t that a meaningless statistic? 

He noted that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth unanimous report calling on world leaders to take action on global warming.

Yea, but there are enough problems there that this also is a meaningless claim. 

“I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action,” Gore said. “There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say ‘rejected,’ perhaps it’s the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.

I really disagree.  The headlines blaze daily about the global warming threat, and they trumpet the mantra of the holy consensus.  What he is pissed about is that they don’t trumpet enough, and occasionally they publish an article by a doubter or a skeptic, or even an actual scientist with a counter theory.

The fact is that unless you follow Al’s lead you are a denier and a fool, and any media effort to discuss that must be stopped.

“I don’t think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, ‘It may be real, it may not be real,’ is unethical.

No, you didn’t actually say that.  You suggested it, in a subtle Paraleipsis, but you didn’t say it.

But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.

Of course. They were naughty.  But here he draws a firmer line.

“I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.”

Whoops, no not just naughty, they were “pressured” to bury the “Most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced”. 

So by that, if you are an editor and you do not report 100% in support, in approval and in wholehearted agreement with the “holy consensus, regardless of facts of scientific merit, or even that fleeting journalistic integrity, you are immoral, unethical, spiritually corrupt, and politically motivated.

Now the real irony

Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.

Yea, no wonder.  After you call them names, insult them, question their integrity and accuse them of conspiring to destroy the world, it is not like they might want to ask you a few questions.

The first would be “what are you smoking?”

And I found a nifty new cartoon for Al too, at Sister Toldjah.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS