Please meet NIPCC - a non-governmental organization that claims that the effect of carbon dioxide is not as terrible as the IPCC claims. It turns out that once again this is an organization funded by institutes related to the energy industry and does not operate in a peer review method
Fox News tries to challenge the almost unanimous consensus about climate change by citing a marginal study that claims that the effects resulting from increasing greenhouse gases are minimal and not dangerous, but it did not mention the report's connection to industry or the fact that a major IPCC report is likely to be challenged the 'findings' of this report later this month.
The program "Happening Now" mentioned the report on Wednesday, in an article about a hearing in the House of Representatives. Moderator Greg Jarrett and Fox News reporter Doug McElwee said this report undermines the testimony of EPA officials at the hearing that the danger is indeed real. McElwee claims that the draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Comprehensive Report "contains an admission that temperatures have remained stable for at least the past 15 years" and cited a newly published study by An organization with a similar name (NIPCC), which concludes that the warming is expected to be moderate and not to cause damage". Based on these two quotes, McElwee concludes: "The evidence for warming is now being examined under a magnifying glass and with increasing skepticism."
However, Fox News omitted the expectation that the report of the IPCC - a group of scientists who do not receive remuneration for their work on the committee, and who summarize the findings of studies in the field of climate science, which is conservative in its definition, is that the probability that humans are the cause of warming is at least 95%.
The NIPCC report was completed by contributors who were paid for their work and did not go through rigorous peer review. Moreover, the body that published it is a collaboration of three groups backed by the fossil fuel industry, including the Heartland Institute, which is known as a think tank that promotes climate skepticism. Among other things, the organization published billboards including the Jonbommer - one of the biggest serial killers in the US who is quoted as believing in man-made global warming. Previous editions of the NIPCC report were called "dishonest" and "scientifically unreliable" by experts. Fox News did not mention these statements.
In an email interview with Media Matters, prominent climate scientists criticized the network for citing the NIPCC in the same breath as the IPCC. Kevin Turnbert, of the National Center for Atmospheric Studies. "The NIPCC report has no weight. This is not a peer-reviewed document, it is not open to review at any stage and it includes information that has been proven to be rubbish and incorrect. In contrast, the process of preparing the IPCC reports is rigorous, and open and includes at least two reviews of each study. This is irresponsible journalism.
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University: "Fox's citation of the NIPCC is a mistake. Media that cite both the IPCC and the NIPCC in the same breath (or in close proximity) are either uninformed, or trying to confuse the public, unless they are trying to clarify that there is a difference between the two organizations and explain that the NIPCC does not represent the consensus of The experts in the field of climate change. If the NIPCC is ever cited it should be in this context.”
Unfortunately, this article is part of a massive effort by many media outlets to betray their viewers or readers as they prepare for the IPCC report.
For the news on the Media Matras website, including the video of the segment in question from 'Fox News'
And if you thought that the situation is better in media that are less identified with the Republican right, Another study of Media Matras Finds that in the first half of 2013, slightly more than half of CNBC's climate change reports cast doubt on the consensus that global warming exists and is man-made. In the three months since then, very little has changed. In doing so, the economic network does a disservice to its viewers who are required to include climate change considerations in their long-term business plans. Between June 14 and September 17, 55% (11 out of 20 articles) in which climate change was mentioned in full or in parts of the reports were from the point of view of casting doubt on the existence of warming, an increase compared to 51% in the previous survey.
In those articles, the reporters rejected the assertion that climate change is something that needs to be addressed. Only 30% of mentions were in favor of accepting the scientific position behind man-made climate change. Out of three items that dealt fully with climate change, only in one of them did a host or guest accept climate change as true.
For news about CNBC on the Matras Media website
Editor's note
For those who ask me why I constantly take care of some or other factors that promote the 'no warming' agenda. The answer is that in the general media, Sometimes you don't know how to differentiate between a real argument and the spin of the deniers and fall into the trap. Then intelligent people come to me and tell me what you want, there is no warming up. A fact that was written in the newspaper.
12 תגובות
NIPCC is funded by the same entities that fund the campaign against climate science, and it doesn't matter what they say, with all due respect to the Heartland Institute, it has no commitment to scientific truth but to the oil gods who fund it.
Media Matters investigates bias in the media, not everyone who criticizes charlatans is a Marxist just because the charlatans are right-wing.
certain
In your opinion - what is the probability that all the research institutes in the world, dealing with warming, are wrong?
I doubt you're open to the possibility that you're wrong, I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
Learn a little about the NIPCC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaVL1Ham-4A
And of course quotes from Matras media are extremely misleading due to the site's neo-Marxist ideology, but that is another debate.
Of course it sounds logical, if it weren't for the physics of CO2 which is a greenhouse gas that is the link between the two paragraphs. Would you like to wait until we reach tens of percent of the atmosphere and 500 degrees Celsius like on Venus?
They do not receive money for participating in the committee, the money all these scientists received and receive from all the hype surrounding the issue through huge grants and huge salaries.
The change is amazing especially when you realize that 30 years ago this profession was a dead profession.
Let's not talk about researchers whose names were included in the report and went so far as to be interviewed on television demanding that their names be removed from those reports as if they agreed to them.
And even though I'm trying, really trying to keep up with the pace at which you, my father, keep tying two different things into one, I can't
Both things are
1. People who believe that the earth is warming and the troubles that are going to come to us from this.
2. People who believe that the rise in the CO2 level at the millennium point (we'll make it easy for you here) and that this rise comes only as a result of the human race is the one that causes the earth to warm, and not God forbid the activity of the sun or other factors.
Really petty. I don't think that even once in any of your privileged articles you qualified the two issues as different.
By the way, it is written in the newspaper, the fact that a scientist writes something that mainly benefits him and his work does not make it right because until now all scientists have is a theory: the earth is warming, CO2 has risen from here it is clear that man is to blame.
What is the evidence? Measurements from 1880 .. nice .. let's leave the other 4 billion years that the earth rotates, it's not relevant (sarcasm)
Shimon
There is a significant difference in the effect of water compared to the effect of CO2. The difference is that the effect of water causes a negative feedback, the result of which is the reduction of the water concentration back. In the case of CO2, there is no feedback mechanism, so its effect is more important.
Again, I ask, what do they base these percentages on? They also brought percentages in the previous report, based on what?
For Shimon, to deal with the arguments you need a whole website. There is no end to the steam of the opponents of warming, and they always invent a new spin.
http://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Why does the reporter complain about the multitude of articles that cast doubt on whether global warming is man-made, and not with the arguments themselves? For example, the magnitude of the effect of co2 relative to the effect of water vapor on the greenhouse effect
Were these numbers based on the previous report?
Unlike you, I am patiently waiting for the report, which, as mentioned, is under the auspices of the United Nations and includes about 3,000 climate scientists from all disciplines. Give them credit they know what they are writing about.
How do you get to this number, 95%? What is it based on?