Has Climate Change "reporting" reached "End Game'?

[OATEK]

Are you saying an increase in the moisture content of the atmosphere (from melting ice caps) will not lead to wilder weather?

Or more rain?

 

[drron]

Unfortunately things really haven't changed.Just a few headlines from old papers.
..

.

.

.

.

And here's one from our ABC this month fact checked.
.

A lot of this has happened before and the evidence is there for anyone who wants to look.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Are you saying an increase in the moisture content of the atmosphere (from melting ice caps) will not lead to wilder weather?

I'm definitely on the side that believes we humans are destroying the planet. What will be our legacy when we're gone? Small minute pieces of plastic spread over the land, and a layer of radiation that was not naturally created.

BUT, Weather is not climate. Even one abnormally hot/cold/dry/wet season isn't the reason for either party to jump up and down claiming or denying climate change, and doing such only weakens either argument. Climate change is observed over longer trends, not the minutia of fluctuations year on year.

That the change is happening over long period at a n alarming rate cannot be denied, and its this argument that needs to be repeated, not the "oh this hot day is because of climate change"...

 

[RooFlyer]

Are you saying an increase in the moisture content of the atmosphere (from melting ice caps) will not lead to wilder weather?

I know you were asking SBF, but I just re-read what they said and it looks to me that they were lamenting people getting weather and climate mixed up. A pretty sensible view.

But that said, how much melting ice caps do you want? What's 'normal'?

 

[SeatBackForward]

I know you were asking SBF, but I just re-read what they said and it looks to me that they were lamenting people getting weather and climate mixed up. A pretty sensible view.

confusing weather phenomena as climate phenomena doesn't serve the interests of either party. Its like judging the quality of a restaurant based on single slice of bread they serve out.

 

[Isochronous]

Its the new religion, juddles. Previously, when a person was killed by a falling tree branch it would be be called 'God's will', or an 'act of God'. Now its an act of Climate Change, or the Vengeance of Gaia.

Just remember the Church doesn't like blasphemy, but if you remember to pay for your Indulgences (Carbon Offsets) and you'll be sweet ! Failing to comply will result in the High Priests condemning you to burning (as in St Greta at the UN).

I'm sure the Inquisition will come, so we should enjoy this time when we are free to express contrary opinions.

Well said.

The sort of meddlesome sadists who used to use Methodism or the Baptist Church as a guise for hectoring others based on admonishing the cinema, cosmetics and measuring skirt lengths were rendered homeless by the demise of those sects and have now turned to the green religion for solace and a new, trendy excuse to inflict misery on others.

 

[Renato1]

The whole Climate Change rage these days is clearly not specifically an aviation thing, but I choose to post this thread as the AFF community has a wonderful and deeply talented pool of opinions on all things. And so I will enjoy all sides of any feedback.

Let me start by clearing up one thing: I am not a denier in that I do think the climate does change. And I do think that humans can sometimes have a meaningful impact on it. But I also see the mainstream hoopla about it as being just that. There are so very many pressing concerns, but I get that for todays youth (and some adults) the fun thing these days is to focus on just temperatures. I also understand that Climate Change is a very important tool for many "scientists" to secure funding.

I am a devout hater of fake news, and "reporting" that is just designed to feed the masses with the flavour they beg. This needs a certain type of journalism, common these days, where the journalists prostitute themselves to feeding, rather than enlightening....

Anyway, I have recently taken to reading news articles - all sorts. It is a desire I have to try to understand modern society and beliefs. And I must say it is hard going. Every day bombarded by journalists competing to come up with the most alarming words they can think of to describe any event in relation to climate and weather. And of course, despite the English language being a superb pool to draw on, eventually things get a bit repetitive. Words like "catastrophic" and " record-breaking" and so forth must have surely by now lost any actual impact on readers.

But today I was actually surprised at the lengths journalists have allowed themselves to get to - a tree branch fell in Melbourne and killed the passenger in a car. Tree branches have fallen for ever, and cars have been around for quite a while. So a branch falling on a car and killing a person is sad, but journalists have to find an angle to make the event "rate". So here we have it:

"Caution against linking branch fall to extreme weather
Police did not confirm whether Victoria's record-breaking heat on Friday was being investigated as a contributing factor to the branch's fall."

this is from the ABC: Falling tree branch crushes back of car, killing passenger

Oh. My. God.

Can it get any worse? If aliens were the current craze, the article would have said "Police did not confirm if aliens were involved".

That statement is obviously ridiculous, but actually no more ridiculous than what they actually wrote.

I read a recent article about Trump and his impeachment. Basically what it said (and I agree) is that these days people tend to only read stories that support their beliefs (or fantasies). So despite any great actual evidence either way, the impact of news (so called information) did not change anyone's views.

So now we have it. "news" is not reporting in the old sense. It is not to inform. It is all about satisfying appetites.

Now a tree branch falling instantly needs a link to the evil boogy man under your bed, that of the hideous Climate Change monster. I will be unsurprised when the next report about domestic violence refers to the impact of high temperatures. Crop failures in Australia used to acknowledge the many-year cycles of drought and rain that have existed in Australia for ever. But not now - the past is forgotten - now it is Climate Change. Baseball-sized hail stones will be a clear indication that climate armageddon is upon us. Etc Etc.

These last are ridiculous ideas. But that journo who has managed to tie a falling branch to Climate Change shows that the fervour and intellect with which they write their stories to appease masses make smy own sense of thinking up the ridiculous truly amateurish.

Police did not confirm if they were investigating climate change when a tree branch fell??

Again, O.M.F.G!!!!

You are describing Journalists who report news, versus activist jounalists who are actively support a cause.

In the last month, the activist journalists have been using the bushfires to tout the line that Scott Morrison must do more on climate change, and some actually blaming him for the fires. They interview activists who say it, and housewives evacuated from the fires who say it. They cite Albanese who says Morrison is ignoring the science. Curiously, very little coverage was given to Bill Shorten who a couple of weeks ago said that had he been Prime Minister and his Climate Change policies enacted, the bushfires wouldn't have happened.

This is unreason and unreality. Even if Australia sacrificed itself and stopped ALL fossil fuel generation to do our bit, China alone typically is adding that much coal-fired generation every three to eight months. Add to that countries like India, Germany and Japan who are also adding huge amounts of coal-fired power, and our sacrifice in getting rid of fossil fuel generation - would have had zero effect on the bushfires - unless we could put a Star Trek-like force field around Australia to keep the CO2 from other countries out.

That climate journalist activism is running wild, is nowhere more explicit than in the USA where It transpires that the Columbia University School of Journalism did an exercise to get 200 news outlets to co-ordinate and hype Greta Thunberg who was visiting the USA.
Regards,
Renato

Exclusive: Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That climate journalist activism is running wild, is nowhere more explicit than in the USA where It transpires that the Columbia University School of Journalism did an exercise to get 200 news outlets to co-ordinate and hype Greta Thunberg who was visiting the USA.

For sure that happens, but it is equally orchestrated by those arguing against climate change. Both sides mobilise their forces to get across their side of the campaign.

200 news outlets coming together doesn’t mean their message is wrong.

 

[get me outta here]

You are describing Journalists who report news, versus activist jounalists who are actively support a cause.

In the last month, the activist journalists have been using the bushfires to tout the line that Scott Morrison must do more on climate change, and some actually blaming him for the fires. They interview activists who say it, and housewives evacuated from the fires who say it. They cite Albanese who says Morrison is ignoring the science. Curiously, very little coverage was given to Bill Shorten who a couple of weeks ago said that had he been Prime Minister and his Climate Change policies enacted, the bushfires wouldn't have happened.

This is unreason and unreality. Even if Australia sacrificed itself and stopped ALL fossil fuel generation to do our bit, China alone typically is adding that much coal-fired generation every three to eight months. Add to that countries like India, Germany and Japan who are also adding huge amounts of coal-fired power, and our sacrifice in getting rid of fossil fuel generation - would have had zero effect on the bushfires - unless we could put a Star Trek-like force field around Australia to keep the CO2 from other countries out.

That climate journalist activism is running wild, is nowhere more explicit than in the USA where It transpires that the Columbia University School of Journalism did an exercise to get 200 news outlets to co-ordinate and hype Greta Thunberg who was visiting the USA.
Regards,
Renato

Exclusive: Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg

The Daily Caller : The Daily Caller - Wikipedia:


The Daily Caller is a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by now Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010. Launched as a "conservative answer to The Huffington Post", The Daily Caller quadrupled its audience and became profitable by 2012, surpassing several rival websites by 2013. The Daily Caller is a member of the White House press pool.

The Daily Caller

Type of site	News, opinion
Available in	English
Founded	January 11, 2010
Headquarters	1920 L Street NW Floor 2, Washington, D.C.20036
Owner	The Daily Caller, Inc.
Founder(s)	Tucker Carlson Neil Patel
Key people	Tucker Carlson(Founder) Neil Patel(Publisher) Geoff Ingersoll (Editor-in-Chief) Vince Coglianese (Editorial Director) Amber Athey (Breaking News Editor)
Website	dailycaller.com
Alexa rank	990 (June 2, 2019)[1]
Advertising	Native
Registration	Optional, required to comment
Launched	January 11, 2010; 9 years ago
Current status	Online

The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories. The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. The website has published articles by white supremacists, such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow. Scott Greer was The Daily Caller's deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed that he published articles espousing white nationalist, racist anti-black and antisemitic views under a pseudonym in white supremacist publications.

 

[juddles]

Well said.

The sort of meddlesome sadists who used to use Methodism or the Baptist Church as a guise for hectoring others based on admonishing the cinema, cosmetics and measuring skirt lengths were rendered homeless by the demise of those sects and have now turned to the green religion for solace and a new, trendy excuse to inflict misery on others.

I won't go into detail now as it is a time for celebrating and relaxing, but I am developing an idea about the whole Climate Change phenomenon (the human extremism of opinion, not the actual physical/natural situation) And it is starting to make a lot of sense to me.

On the one hand, in almost all cultures, for ever, adult humans have had religion. It seems to fill some need in our lives. On the other hand, there is another omni-present feature of human society - the desire for rebellion or idealism amongst the youth.

For millenia both these aspects of society have been present, but just like the convergence of ocean waves from different storms that can produce a "freak" wave, I think we are living in a period where in western society these two have combined. The general loss of religious fervour in modern societies has left a gap that required an inner desire in people to fill. And the youth have leapt upon this same crusade as it has never been done before and so is perfect for the modern young generation to embrace.

Freak waves are rare, very rare indeed. And they are dangerous. And they also don't last.

I bet anyone $10 that in 20 years "Climate Change" will not rate news stories. Not because it doesn't exist, not because it is not important, but because so many other dire and pressing issues will remove it from the limelight. Along with new religions and new and cool things for kids to get angry about

 

[Renato1]

For sure that happens, but it is equally orchestrated by those arguing against climate change. Both sides mobilise their forces to get across their side of the campaign.

200 news outlets coming together doesn’t mean their message is wrong.

No, but it means that they aren't journalists reporting unbiased news.
Cheers,
Renato

 

[Renato1]

The Daily Caller : The Daily Caller - Wikipedia:


The Daily Caller is a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by now Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010. Launched as a "conservative answer to The Huffington Post", The Daily Caller quadrupled its audience and became profitable by 2012, surpassing several rival websites by 2013. The Daily Caller is a member of the White House press pool.

The Daily Caller

Type of site	News, opinion
Available in	English
Founded	January 11, 2010
Headquarters	1920 L Street NW Floor 2, Washington, D.C.20036
Owner	The Daily Caller, Inc.
Founder(s)	Tucker Carlson Neil Patel
Key people	Tucker Carlson(Founder) Neil Patel(Publisher) Geoff Ingersoll (Editor-in-Chief) Vince Coglianese (Editorial Director) Amber Athey (Breaking News Editor)
Website	dailycaller.com
Alexa rank	990 (June 2, 2019)[1]
Advertising	Native
Registration	Optional, required to comment
Launched	January 11, 2010; 9 years ago
Current status	Online

The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories. The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. The website has published articles by white supremacists, such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow. Scott Greer was The Daily Caller's deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed that he published articles espousing white nationalist, racist anti-black and antisemitic views under a pseudonym in white supremacist publications.

So, you are asserting that the article isn't true? That it didn't happen? That it can't be trusted?
Because some one calls them "Right Wing"?

Should be pretty easy to use Google and find rebuttals and denunciations by Columbia University School of Journalism and the 200 news organisations, saying that they have been smeared by the Daily Caller, given that they all have media platforms.


Feel free to go search for those denunciations.

As for Fake News, anyone reading the Daily Caller for the last two years, according to the mainstream media, were falling for a huge conspiracy theory that there was no Russian collusion, that Trump was set-up by Clinton's campaign and sympathisers within the CIA and FBI, that Trump and his campaign was spied on by the FBI and by friendly governments at the behest of the CIA.

The Mueller Report comes out, and there was no Russian Collusion. Then Inspector General Horowitz's report comes out, and Trump and his team were indeed spied on not just before he was elected, but even after he became President. That is, total vindication of the Daily Caller's reporting, in stark contrast to that of the leftist mainstream media. (We will have to wait for the Durham investigation to conclude to see if friendly governments were used to spy on Trump).

Given this, expect the Daily Caller to keep growing in leaps and bounds. Note also, that its reporting tries to just present facts news articles, while the Conservative views are presented in articles clearly titled "Opinion" - a separation again in sharp contrast to the rest of the media which is presenting opinion as reporting.
Regards,
Renato

 

[drron]

As for fake news there was this wonderful example put out by The Project on channel 10 and rebroadcast by the ABC and SBS where the video was edited to have Jacqui just say you're not my Prime Minister.Of course the rest of the sentence went on to explain that she is a British citizen so Boris Johnston is her Prime Minister.
Waleed Ali apologised saying that the clip that went to air was how it was distributed yet Channels 7 and 9 managed to broadcast the whole video.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1209310527559626752

And in the USA Bloomberg news reporters have been told in no uncertain terms that they may only report political news put out by Michael Bloomberg their boss.

 

[tgh]

Discussion about climate change action will continue to generate advertising income for the mass market media.
This generation of profits will be the only tenuous contribution of the whole schism to our society… what a sad and sorry mess.
Society holds an increasingly polarised body of opinion , with zero hope of any common ground for doing anything constructive.
Like Juddles , I opine that other disasters will soon come along and render climate change the very least of our worries.

 

[Hvr]

And in the USA Bloomberg news reporters have been told in no uncertain terms that they may only report political news put out by Michael Bloomberg their boss.

And yet Rupert does the same for the right wing politicians without comment.
Seems a double standard that only one side of politics is held to account or called out for restrictions on press reporting.

 

[RooFlyer]

And yet Rupert does the same for the right wing politicians without comment.
Seems a double standard that only one side of politics is held to account or called out for restrictions on press reporting.

That old canard. C'mon - come up with something new - it has been denied and disproved so many times its not funny. You can disprove it for yourself by having a look at the Oz on any given day and read the columns by Labour politicians, past and present and others on that 'side'. Rupert knows how to turn a profit - you don't exclude half the market! The Oz editorialised for the republic, for Marriage Equality and even for the election of a Labour government, in the past.

 

[drron]

And yet Rupert does the same for the right wing politicians without comment.
Seems a double standard that only one side of politics is held to account or called out for restrictions on press reporting.

Yet people like Malcolm Farr and Grahame Richardson say Rupert never told them what to say when working for News Ltd.
Besides that just read the Peter Van Onselen articles in the Australian.i reckon he is to the left of you.he is also the political editor of Channel 10 which let the edited video through.

 

[mulubinba]

It is difficult too have constructive discussion and debate when both sides believe the other side are entrenched and prejudiced. I think it is telling that climate change activists are cast by some as participants in a “greenie” religion and therefore can be seen as evangelising zealots - with their “facts” having the dubious authority of sacred writings which one can chose to believe or not. Those at the other end of the spectrum are portrayed by others as “climate change deniers”, unable to accept or understand the science and equally prejudiced and entrenched in their views.

If both sides of the debate believe the other side is irrational and so passionate about their cause that any evidence they present is likely to be biased or false, it follows that sensible discussion is unlikely to occur.

What we need is consensus on the data. (My understanding is that pretty much all of the data shows that the climate is changing.) Then the discussion can focus on how much of a problem we have, whether it is within our power to do anything about it, and the costs and benefits of various courses of action. Extreme actions - like closing all the coal mines tomorrow- are unlikely to make the cut. But extreme inaction is just as likely to fail us too.

 

[RooFlyer]

What we need is consensus on the data. (My understanding is that pretty much all of the data shows that the climate is changing.)

Your piece is well argued, but flawed I think in the quote. For many of us, it’s not that the climate isn’t changing ( which should rob those who throw the vicious insult of ‘deniers’ ) but that it’s always changing, at various rates and to various extremes. The paucity of data for past extreme occurrences ( other than they existed, such as recent ice ages) to me makes it hard to sustain the argument that is currently all man’s fault and we have to nigh-on destroy our economy to ‘fix’ it.

Most of the quoted ’science’ is on a tiny fraction of the earth’s history, measured to hundredths of degrees. yet for events in the very recent past, they can’t agree on the timing of multi-degree variations, except that somehow they occurred.

The fact that we were first attempted to be bullied into believing that the ‘science is settled’ ( when it was demonstrably not, and rarely ever is) also led me to believe that many of the more strident in the global warming camp are merely charlatans.

 

[dajop]

Juddles, I think this is what you are talking about, right? (from The Age and ABC), screen shots, although I didn't actually click on links (nor do I want to promulgate by sharing the links).