Why was the 'End of Global Warming (AGW)' study not reported in the mainstream media? ?
Good grief! They've had since last year to report it!! Certainly they couldn't be biased.... could they??
“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus’, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?” AEI’s Schwartz concluded.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.
“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),”
- NoFloxLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
Not only those peer-reviewed studies were ignored but also, the fact that some of those scientists were former IPCC scientists who resigned. That's a very long list of scientists for the mainstream media to ignore, yet they did.
What's even worse, this past July the Senate released additional studies with more peer-reviews and more current information; but again the mainstream media conveniently forgot to mention them:
The concept of impartial and responsible media coverage was buried deep underground and long time ago.
- davemLv 51 decade ago
The media has pretty much turned left-wing in most of the world. The intent to mislead and misinform is very real now. That said, the fact that things happen doesn't mean they should be made public if they go against the agenda that the media follows. In the case of this particular study, an end to the alarmism and concern (virtual panic in some places) is exactly the opposite of that the media wants people to see which is why it hasn't been publicized.
- KenLv 51 decade ago
Because PR news releases by partisan hacks, like Morano, isn't newsworthy and it definitely isn't science. Morano, has already gotten far more media coverage than his "knowledge" on the subject warrants.
If you want to know what the science says, read Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academies, Journal of Climate, or any of the other well respected scientific journals that report on climate science.Source(s): http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html http://www.sciencemag.org/ http://www.pnas.org/ http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ar...
- 1 decade ago
Anyone can publish. The question is how valid are the conclusions. The conclusions in this study suggest that warming estimates might be about half what have been estimated by other scientist. This study suggest warming is real just less than some other study suggest.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- JohnLv 61 decade ago
Because the mainstream media are pushing an false alarmist agenda to get all of us to put ourselves under the control of the leftists. Most of what the media say are falsehoods at best, and lies at worst. But when you have a bunch of people with attention spans measurable in seconds, media-generated factoids in place of accurate information, and a desire to control everybody running things, what do you expect?
- JimZLv 71 decade ago
That was a long article but interesting and informative. I especially liked the quote:
meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers."
"I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society," Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007.
- Ben OLv 61 decade ago
Most media outlets seem to have either a pro or anti global warming editorial policy. The concept of balanced coverage seems to have gone out the window.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Ever heard of lobbyists?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think Al Gore told them to ignore it
- 1 decade ago
This information is false paid by the oil company so nobody bother to waste other people time