Archive for the ‘Media / Bias’ category

German Media Panic Over Weather, Yet Tropical Storm Energy Near Record Lows.

August 10, 2010

Indeed here in Germany the media have stepped up the dramatic reporting in the wake of Deutsche Welle’s international conference on journalism and climate, reported here: Journalism for Dummkopfs.Driving home yesterday I heard a report on publicly funded German NDR News radio, asking a climate expert (paraphrasing):

Are the recent, numerous weather extremes seen worldwide ominous signs of the climate catastrophe?

NDR went on to mention the weather anomalies in Moscow, Pakistan, China and the local floods in the eastern part of Germany, and emphasized all the death and destruction along with it (They forgot to mention the severe cold in South America). Fortunately, the data tells the opposite story.

Cyclones and storms near all-time lows

Yet anyone taking a closer look will see that all the extraordinary drama is confined to the newsrooms, and is not what’s going on outside.  The latest tropical cyclone energy index shows that cyclones are near all-time lows. Where are all the big cyclones we were told would be coming in the wake of Katrina?


Nasty weather extremes have always occurred, and there are no statistics to show they’ve picked up. The number of deaths resulting from weather and natural disasters is also declining. There are many factors involved here, but the sky fell more often back then than today.

What about tornados in the USA? The following graphic also shows a downward trend.

The worst happened in the past

Indeed looking at the top 10 weather catsatrophes in the USA, the worst ones happened long ago. See Live Science here.

  1. 1900 Galveston  Hurricane, 8,000 dead
2. 2005 Hurricane Katrina, 1,836 dead
3. 1930’s Dust Bowl
4. 1906 San Francisco fire / earthquake 3,000 dead
5. 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, at least 2,500 dead
6. 1980 Heat Wave, massive drought, and 10,000 dead
7. 1988 Heat Wave, between 5,000 and 10,000 dead.
8. 1889 Johnstown Flood, leveled 1,600 homes, killing 2,209
9. 1871 Peshtigo Fire; scorched 12 towns and left 1,200 dead
10. 1925 Tri-State Tornado, nearly 700 dead

But let’s not focus only on the USA, where statistics are easy to get. Let’s look at other parts of the world. Now here’s a graphic (sorry about the quality) showing cyclone activity in the bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea from 1890 until 2000. Looks downward to me. Here the vertical axis shows the annual frequency of cyclones and the x-axis shows the year. The dark line is the 10-year moving average.

Fewer people than ever are dying from weather extremes

And what about deaths globally? With all the bad climate change and growing populations, you’d think people would be getting killed on a massive scale. The following graphic shows the opposite is true.

All the panic is in the newsrooms

So why do some believe that extreme weather events are occurring more often than ever and that more people are dying and suffering? This is because the media stories have increased dramatically over the years, as they report on every Tiny Tim storm out there as if it were a Cat 5.  It’s overhyped.

Source of following graphic:

The above graphic shows the number of newspaper reports about climate change, which is often cited as the reason for every weather anomaly happening out there. Fortunately, things on this big blue planet of ours have been quieter weatherwise, and people have caught on with respect to what all the media hype is about.

All the commotion is coming from the over-agitated folks in the newrooms.

Kola Temperature Reconstruction Shows Solar Correlation – Refutes The Hockey Stick

August 7, 2010

Last week I wrote about a Russian-German temperature reconstruction from 1600 to 2000 derived from tree rings from the Kola Peninsula in northwest Russia . The paper appeared in the journal Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 460–468, by Kononov, Friedrich and Boettger. 

In response, German media outlets all hollered “RAPIDLY RISING ARCTIC TEMPERATURES!”, focussing solely on one statement that temperatures have been rising since 1990. 

It’s a classic example of how a scientific study comes up with Result A, but the public ends up understanding Result Z, all thanks to sloppy and incompetent communication that exists between the two. 

The press release here  provides the following Kola temperature reconstruction graph for summertime temperatures:

Kola Peninsula tree-ring temperature reconstruction. Source: Stephan Boehme/UFZ

Here it’s plain to see that the temperature reconstruction shows that Arctic temperatures in the Kola Peninsula have been rising since about 1670. This corresponds exceptionally well with Loehle’s 2007 reconstruction using 18 non-tree-ring proxies for the last 2000 years shown as follows: 


Both graphics show the Little Ice Age from 1650 to 1750, at which point a warming event ensues. Then it was generally flat from 1750 to about 1920, and then followed by another rise that took place until 1950. Then Kola tree-ring proxies show a cooling up to 1990. Since 1990 warming has occurred again, but it’s  a warming that is completely within the natural range of variation. 

The Kola reconstruction (1) agreed with an earlier reconstruction (2) done in the area, see map below.  What’s more, the Kola reconstruction (1) was compared with tree-ring reconstructions from other Arctic regions: Swedish Lapland (3), Yamal (4), and Taimyr (5).

Proxy locations used for Kola comparison. Source: Journal Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2009, pp. 460–468

The result of the comparison: 

The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees. 

Only the Yamal reconstruction differed completely, resembling the shape of a hockey stick with the blade beginning at 1900. The hockey stick is becoming an artefact of activism.

Except for the Yamal reconstruction, all tree-ring and non-tree ring reconstructions appear to agree, and so indicate no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration.

So what could be driving temperatures then? The authors compared the tree-ring based reconstructions with historical records of sunspots (Lean et al, 1995; Lean, 2000), and say: 

We found that over the whole investigated period fluctuations of summer air temperature reconstructed for the Khibiny Mountains in the central part of the Kola Peninsula have a good consistency (r >0.50) with changes of solar radiation (Fig. 10), especially for the low-frequency signal. 

In the paper’s conclusion we read: 

The broad similarity between this temperature construction and solar radiation indicates that solar activity is an important driver of centennial to multi-decadal trends in summer temperatures of the Kola Peninsula. 

So why did all media reports holler “RAPID TEMPERATURE INCREASE IN THE ARCTIC”. Call it complete communication incompetence by the media players between science and the public.

The Kola reconstructions show no link to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It all started with a solid scientific paper, and but then was distorted (purposely?) by a vague press release that culminated in alarmist media headlines. 

Let’s call that press release incompetence-gate.

Teachable Moments And Laid Off Envrionmental Reporters

August 2, 2010

The warmists continue to stay in denial about why the public isn’t buying the hoax, refusing to come to terms with the sloppy climate data behind the flakey AGW theory. Instead they prefer pretending that the public’s lack of acceptance is due to faulty communication, as illustrated by this video of Rutgers University professor Tony Broccoli.

Read here at the Yale Forum On Climate Change And The Media.

It has finally dawned on the warmists that they’ve seriously underestimated the public’s ability to understand the issue. They’re dismayed that the public was smart enough as a whole not to fall for the hoax.

But they still think they can maybe turn things around by “communicating better”. which only means packaging and delivering the hoax in a diferent way. Now warm and extreme events are going to be called “teachable moments”. Cold and non-warming events will remain natural variability, I suppose.

Well, it’s not going to work.
Once a person sees through a hoax, there’s no way to make them go back and believe it. And it gets a lot harder the next time around because the trust is gone.

Finally, you just have got to love the question from Peach to Broccoli:

Let’s say I’m a journalist who knows nothing about climate science because all of the environmental reporters at my paper or station have been laid off. Do you have tips for me on how to grapple with climate change?

My advice: Wake up from the hoax and find real stories you know something about so that you yourself do not join the rest of the redundant journalists. View them as “teachable moments”.

South America Cold Kills 175 – Where’s The Media?

July 20, 2010

Bitter cold grips South America.

When the temperature sinks far below normal and people freeze to death, you hardly hear a peep from the media anymore.

But as soon as the temperature rises a few degrees over normal for a day or more, the media explodes with headlines of “HEAT WAVE!” and “SCORCHING HEAT!”.

Thanks to the internet and a few media outlets, few and far in between, the inconvenient news of a devastating, protracted cold snap gripping much of south America is coming out. Read

Here are some grisly statistics:

1. 175 dead in 6 countries
2. 112 people had died of hypothermia and flu in Peru.
3. 16 people froze to death and 11 died of carbon monoxide poisoning due to faulty heaters.
4. Thousands of cattle also froze to death on their pastures in Paraguay and Brazil.
5. In Bolivia, 18 people died, in Paraguay five and two each in Chile and Uruguay. Nine people died of the cold in southern Brazil.

How cold is it? Take a look at this post I put up three days ago. return-to-1970s-cold/, showing the 7 day outlook.

You’d think when they’re not too busy covering Zsa Zsa Gabor, the media would cover this.
In Germany, it seems the major news magazines are finding space and time to report the cold – along with the reports of the warm weather we’re having here, which will end in about 36 hours.

 But Germany’s ARD Teklevsion has NOTHING. Same goes for ZDF television. Hmmm.

I couldn’t find much at the major US news services either. CBS – nothing. At CNN there’s a report that’s a day old with 17 deaths. Nothing at the right wing Fox either. Maybe others are better at finding big news.

Die Welt: Earth Could Become Like Venus, 875°F

July 19, 2010

Scientists say Venus could be the future of the Earth - because of man.

12°F warming and 20 ft sea level rises over the next 100 years?  Yawn – how boring. That doesn’t scare anyone anymore. Boring, boring, boring. 

We need shock and awe. It’s time to get drastic and bury the needle, time to roll out the mothers of scare stories. 

For the warmists it’s Hail Mary time.  The “”unless-we-announce-disasters, nobody-will-listen” gig has to be taken to a whole new unheard-of level. The populace is simply much denser than ever imagined. They just aren’t getting it. It’s not sinking in. 

It’s time to bring in the super special effects. So leave it up to the German Die Welt online to do that. The normally respectable Die Welt online reports here on scientists studying the planet Venus and coming to the conclusion that Earth may end up like her hellish little sister planet, with surface temperatures of 875°F and atmospheric pressures of 1300 psi (90 times more than now on earth) and more. 

This is not the first time a media outlet in Europe has ventured out to this extreme. But hey, things are desperate for the warmists – and especially for their vision of geopolitical and societal resurfacing. 

The Die Welt piece starts with the title and introduction: 

Hell Planet Venus Is Not So Different From Earth
875°F and sulphuric acid in the air: A climate of hell reigns on the planet Venus and scientists are now studying if those conditions are threatening the Earth. 

Die Welt reports on what scientists said at an international Venus conference in Aussois, France. They have determined that inhospitable Venus is much more similar to Earth than previously thought

Yes, be worried, be very worried. Die Welt writes the scientists believe that: 

Venus in the past may have been very similar to Earth – with oceans – and even life. Then the climate changed, and the planet turned into red-hot desolation. 

These claims, says Die Welt, are not just science-fiction fantasy, rather they are based on measurements from the European Venus Express probe launched in 2005, which is currently measuring and analysing Venus with an array of high-tech instruments. 

Researchers from the Max-Planck-Institute for Solar System Research in Lindau and Germany’s version of NASA are also involved. 

Even scientists like Colin Wilson of the University of  Oxford thinks it is probable that: 

 In the past there had to have been a lot of water on Venus. 

Just like Earth. But what really makes Venus interesting, says Die Welt: 

 —is the fact that it is a prime example of a runaway greenhouse effect that may have started in a way that is feared to be now taking place on Earth. 

Die Welt describes how things work on Venus: 

Due to its thick cloud cover, only 20% of the solar energy reaches the planet’s surface. This 20%, however, cannot be radiated back into space because of Venus’s dense atmosphere, and thus leads to enormous heating of the planet. 

Die Welt then adds: 

The manmade pollution of the Earth’s  atmosphere – warns a majority of climatologists – could also lead to a runaway situation whose final result would be what we have on Venus today. 

That is: 875°F and an atmospheric pressure over 1300 psi. 

Scientists are interested in finding out if volcanoes could have erupted and disturbed the atmosphere on Venus early on, and thus led to a runaway greenhouse effect, The scientists at the conference in Aussois are trying to determine the cause of resurfacing on Venus. 

To summarise, Die Welt is attempting to get its readers to believe we are creating a hell on Earth. It doesn’t get more cynical than that. 

Meanwhile, just in the time it took to read this post, hundreds of people died worldwide because of malnutrition. But governments and the media couldn’t care less of the current, real tragedy, it seems. It’s more important to go all out and spend billions to cynically concoct new bogus future scare stories to frighten citizens, and ignore the messy problems of today. 

Journalists and governments need to wake up and get back to doing what they’re supposed to do. Funding and supporting scientists in concocting ridiculous scare stories is not one of them. Indeed it’s willful neglect of the pressing problems we face right now on the planet today. 

In Germany this behaviour is a violation of the law and is called Unterlassene Hilfeleistung (neglect to provide rescue assistance). 

The world is not facing a climate catastrophe. Instead it’s dead in the middle of a leadership catastrophe. So much so that one could argue it’s bordering on crime. 

Voters and consumers, it’s time to run these bums out-of-town.

Update: Craig Goodrich brings to our attention the following very useful link to a post by Steve Goddard at WUWT., and Lubos Motl

Oreskes At Deutsche Welle’s Journalism For Dummkopfs Conference

June 29, 2010

Oreskes instructs international journalists to call sceptics "contrarians" and to not use the term "climate debate".

Ulli Kulke of the German online Die Welt national newspaper has written a piece: How Sceptics Are To Be Converted. He reports on the recent Global Media Forum held by German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle dubbed “The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media”, see here for background and here. According to Kulke the real objective of the forum: 

The media are to warn the public of the dangers of climate change even more effectively and powerfully than before, and of course to make it even more clear that it’s the fault of man. 

One well-attended workshop was: How To Deal With Climate Scepticism. Its own stated objective: 

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures. 

and warned: 

Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics at the expense of the basis of life. 

According to the workshop’s moderator, Bernhard Pötter of the newspaper Tageszeitung

For journalists, climate change is the most important topic of the 21st century. 

The “How To Deal With Climate Scepticism” workshop was designed to provide assistance to frustrated editors, authors and other journalists on how to best deal with the unwanted confrontation with a climate sceptic. 

Oreskes’s Propaganda 

One notable speaker at the workshop was Naomi Oreskes, who, according to Kulke, requests journalists eliminate the use of the word “scepticism” from their reporting. Kulke reports on Oreskes: 

‘Scepticism” is too positive, and is indeed even a virtue in science. It’s better to use the word “contrarian’, which one can translate as ‘adversary’ or ‘dissenter’, says Oreskes. “Also it’s a no-no to use the term climate debate’. 

‘It’s no wonder,’ complained Oreskes, ‘that people think science is still debating climate change when everywhere in newspapers one reads about a ‘debate’. Debate has long been in the history books. Climate change is a scientifically proven fact.’ It’s important for journalists to stress that the debate is over. 

Ulli Kulke wonders what newspapers Oreskes could be possibly reading out in California, which would lead her to conclude the press is playing down climate change. Kulke writes: 

In the years leading up to and after the last IPCC assessment report in 2007, the press and television reported daily on the coming end of the world in America and Europe. 

But this has changed over the last half-year. Inconsistencies, cover-ups, big blunders and, most of all, exaggerations by climate scientists have been exposed. Some have admitted their errors. Even plots by scientists against their sceptic colleagues came to light. As a result the media have toned down their alarmism a little. And one even gets the impression that, since Climategate, journalistic principles have made a comeback. But some people have got a problem with that. 

Like Oreskes. 

Much to her chagrin, parts of the German press, such as Ulli Kulke, are not ready to abandon the principles of journalism. That’s good news.

Expect scepticism contrarianism to grow in Europe.

Frustration At Deutsche Welle Forum

June 23, 2010

H/T: Benny Peiser

This is the final day of the Deutsche Welle’s Global Media Forum, this year’s conference is titled “The Heat is On – Climate Change and the Media”. If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that elite warmists are extremely frustrated. Read here.

Bob Ward:

British journalists don’t know difference between fact and fiction.

Peiser’s GWPF report reads: “But he also concedes that there have been grave mistakes made by researchers”. And Ward called for scientists to handle their findings and knowledge responsibly. Ward goes on to say:

The IPCC is too slow in correcting the faults.

Naomi Oreskes, non-consensus denialist:

The statements from scientists are so greatly disconnected from the media in the USA because the journalists unknowingly and inaccurately repeat what was said.

…so-called climate skeptics are nothing but “contrarians” and can’t be taken seriously because their critique isn’t scientifically based.

Can you hear their teeth gnashing?

EIKE Replies To Deutsche Welle’s Letter Of Denial

June 22, 2010

In yesterday’s post I wrote about Deutsche Welle’s  letter to European Institute for Climate Energy (EIKE). where it denies being one-sided in holding an alarmist conference for journalists called: The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media, which has workshops like: How to professionally deal with climate scepticism. The conference’s own stated objective:

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures

And the panelists at the conference warn: 

Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics at the expense of the basis of life. 

Despite the obvious one-sidedness of the conference, Deutsche Welle’s Intendant Erik Bettermann sent a letter to EIKE denying it completely. Remember that Deutsche Welle is a publicly funded broadcaster that is required by law to remain fair and balanced.

Now here’s a translation of EIKE’s response to Deutsche Welle’s denial:

Dear Herr Bettermann

Thank you for your reply dated 9 June 2010. You state at the start of your letter concerning the conference that: 

“…Deutsche Welle neither influences the global discussion on climate development in a one-sided manner, nor does it intend to, through its reporting or through the international convention: Global Media Forum..” 

However your website announcement itself states: 
Global warming presents grave problems for the world. Climate change not only has impacts on geo-political peace, regional conflicts, social well-being and human rights, it also impacts our very existence – whether or not the planet will be a hospitable place. Starvation, mass movement of refugees, flooding, lost harvests, extreme storms, droughts and pandemics weaken the foundation of our collective home. The Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum 2010 will put the main topics concerning climate change at the centre of focus and search for a practical way out of the current situation, whereby the role of the media at the international, national and local levels are considered. To prevent the catastrophe, drastic instruments and measures are required.”

This is indeed state doctrine that DW is describing. But it is factually false and moreover it involves the massive, forbidden influence of public opinion. Furthermore, you deny influencing of participants with seminar speakers. But the web announcement itself states, for example: “For journalists it is almost impossible to check over each and every statement for factual accuracy…,“ and: “Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics…This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures.“ And further: “That’s why it simply cannot be said that Deutsche Welle is promoting in any way, within the framework of the Global Media Forum,  a one-sided view on the problem of climate development.”

That the single pages of the seminar cannot be called up does not change in any way the publicly made Deutsche Welle objective of influencing public opinion.

In addition you write:  “…through presentations, discussions and debates, the Global Media Forum is a conference for journalists, politicians, scientists and many others in dealing with the question of what role the media have in sharpening people’s awareness regarding the complex topic of climate change.” 

Yet, to the contrary, the stated objective of the conference is to sharpen the fear of climate catastrophe. That’s a big difference. 

You further confirm your denial of public fact, and contradict your own website announcement: 
“Deutsche Welle offers a forum for these discussions , and as a publicly funded broadcaster, does not represent a pre-decided opinion in one direction or another…”

For any normal German reader, it is obvious that the statements made in your letter are in direct contradiction to the publicly stated objective of the forum.  The forum Deutsche Welle is conducting does not in any way comply to the requirements for publicly funded media outlet, paid by the German taxpayer.

Thus we request once again that you cancel this one-sided, catastrophe-promoting conference. The public will be kept informed by us in the appropriate ways.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. H. Thuss,         Dipl. Ing M. Limburg, 
Präsident               EIKE Vizepäsident

Of course the conference began yesterday, and ends tomorrow. No word if some of the conference’s content has been removed in order to comply with the law. Don’t hold your breath. One can now safely say that one publicly funded media arm in Germany has officially gone from journalism to state-sponsored propoganda.

EIKE Sends Letter Of Protest To German Public Broadcaster Deutsche Welle

June 11, 2010

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)  based in Germany has sent a Letter of Protest to the Intendant of German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle demanding that it refrains from the illegal use of public funds and cancel its one-sided conference for journalists called: The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media.

The international conference, scheduled to take place in Bonn from June 21 till June 23, excludes all views that disagree with the extreme AGW gloom and doom, world downfall view.  However, because Deutsche Welle is a publicly funded institution, it is required by German Law to remain neutral and honest.

Instead, Deutsche Welle has decided on its own to abandon journalism and to resort to promoting one single extreme view on the topic of climate change, and to shut out the rest. It’s activism run amok.

One workshop is How to professionally deal with climate scepticism. The workshop’s objective:

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures.

This conference has infuriated a number of scientists and citizens. As a result EIKE has drafted and dispatched a letter of protest to Deutsche Welle. The letter states:

It certainly cannot be in the interest of a publicly financed broadcaster to put its own existence into question with a debate over its objectivity.


Enlightened thinking has always been at the centre of our culture, along with sceptical, critical and scrutinising thought. It is intolerable that, here in Germany, public funds are being illegally used under your supervision and under your responsibility to marginalise a large number persons (the majority!) who share a different opinion.

More information about Deutsche Welle and its conference is here and here.

77 German Scientists sign a petition

To show that there is a wide range of opinions on the AGW topic in Germany, EIKE has a Petition refuting catastrophic AGW signed by 77 German scientists.

The Heat is On – Protest Begins To Mount! Call Mr Bettermann at +49 228 429 2008

June 10, 2010

My last 2 posts have been about this topic, where a one-sided international conference for journalists will provide their marching orders for the months ahead. Normally such a conference if organised privately would be legitimate.

But the shocking thing about this conference is that it is organised by a German publically funded radio and TV broadcaster – Deutsche Welle, and therefore the total absence of neutrality and objectivity is a violation of Germany’s Consitutional Law.

The conference calls on journalists to:

1. Abandon neutrality and to report only on the single extreme view of AGW calamity.
2. Abandon professional procedures in journalism. See here and here.

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)  based in Germany has sent a Letter of Protest (in German) to Deutsche Welle demanding that they refrain from this misuse of public funds and cancel the one-sided conference which clearly excludes any views that disagree with the extreme gloom and doom world downfall view. It requests that it too obey the law, like every other citizen or guest in the country is rightfully expected to do. Currently the letter is only in German.

Hopefully EIKE will post a copy in English.

In the meantime, we urge readers to write or call Deutsche Welle at:

Phone: +49 228 429-2008 (Ask for a Mr Bettermann)
Fax: +49 228 429-2140

They speak excellent English. Please politely ask him why they are violating the law by presenting only one radical side of the issue, and insist they present all the other wide range of views from other scientists and experts on climate change. Why is it they are presenting only the worst of scenarios? Is it really their job to emotionalise the audience with the aim to get them to think in one particular way?

Let us know what they tell you. I left my name and number with the secreatry, who said Mr Bettermann will call me back.