When it comes to the way the MSM covers the news, sometimes it’s the little things that are the most annoying. The AP covered Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision to re-impose a six month  deep water drilling moratorium in predictable fashion, using most of the piece to emphasize the administration’s fear-mongering tactics as justification for a decision that will damage the economy of the Gulf states more than the oil spill. U.S. District Court Judge Milton Feldman’s reasons for overturning the ban aren’t addressed until the last two paragraphs of the piece, and even then not before the reader has been coached to dismiss Feldman’s opinion after reading this snarky observation:

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and has owned stock in a number of petroleum-related companies, sided with the plaintiffs.

Has owned stock in petroleum-related companies? Really? In a financial world full of 401Ks, IRAs and money market funds, how many people haven’t owned stock in “petroleum-related” companies? More to the point, what does the person who appointed him or what investments he made have to do with Feldman’s opinion, or with the many good arguments that suggest the moratorium is a very bad idea?

The AP does a great job of recounting the death toll from the initial explosion and the magnitude of the subsequent spill. I’m not quite sure why, since I doubt if there’s anyone left on the planet who doesn’t have a pretty good idea about how bad things are in the gulf, but if they want to repeat those stats, fine. How about some other statistics though? There are statistics one rarely sees in MSM coverage of the spill on the deep water drilling moratorium, statistics the administration doesn’t like to talk about: (more…)

Hey Mainstream Media, before you dismiss legitimate scientists who disagree with your global warming meme as “deniers,” how about listening to an actual, open-minded scientist who agrees with you?

One of the most electrifying moments of the Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Climate Change Conference was when Professor Scott Denning of Colorado State University asked to speak to the crowd during the close of the conference. Listen to what Dr. Denning, a climatologist who doesn’t agree with skeptics, who believes that AGW is a problem, has to say and listen to the reaction from crowd of about 700 “skeptics.”

Heartland invites all the leading climate scientists to its conferences. Very few believers in AGW accept that invitation. Denning deserves our respect and admiration for not only showing up, not only listening to other views, but for calling out his colleagues:

It’s really too bad that more of my colleagues from the scientific community didn’t attend this.

And for acknowledging a basic truth:

We have much more in common than our differences.

(more…)

You would think that a conference that features some of the world’s leading scientists talking about a hot-button issue like global warming would attract a bit of old media attention. The Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, currently being held in Chicago, features distinguished scientists like the University of Colorado’s Dr. William Gray, Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, MIT atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen, former astronaut and United States Senator Dr. Harrison Schmitt and the guy who broke the hockey stick, Steve McIntyre. But, while there are a number of bloggers here, while Pajamas Media is here, while the European press is here – including the BBC – and while I’m here, the MSM is nowhere to be found.

What are they so afraid of – that they might learn something? It’s not like everyone is singing in chorus. For example, on Sunday night Steve McIntyre told the fascinating story of how and why Michael Mann and his cohorts “hid the decline,” complete with the relevant e-mails and published charts that irrefutably show how Mann, Jones and the rest of the climategate gang consciously discarded relevant data and then tried to cover their actions up.

The mainstream media meme, with regards to hiding the decline, is that while that this revelation was regrettable, it does nothing to disprove the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming. Guess what? McIntyre agrees. In fact, he went out of his way to say that he’s not your “go to” guy with respect to carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate. There are others who have that particular expertise. But, anyone who listens to McIntyre recount this story of scientific malpractice could not help but be deeply troubled and wonder: what else have they been hiding? (more…)

If ignorance is truly bliss, then green-blogger Brendan DeMelle has got to be one the happiest people on the face of the earth. Attempting to ridicule the Heartland Institutes’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, set to kick off in Chicago this Sunday, DeMelle relied on tired arguments that might otherwise be persuasive if they were either: a) relevant, or b) accurate. The following pretty much sums up DeMelle’s take:

…this denial-a-palooza fest is dripping with oil money and represents a blatant industry effort to greenwash oil and coal while simultaneously attacking the credibility of climate scientists.

The entire conference can therefore be dismissed out of hand. Nothing to see here except a bunch of posers on the take, right? Had he been blogging during the Renaissance, no doubt DeMelle would have advanced the same kind of argument to defend the accepted version of “settled science” back then:

Pay no attention of that fraud Galileo. You know he’s part of the Accademia dei Lincei, right? And you know that group is funded by that rich aristocrat Federico Cesi, right? How can you believe a guy with those connections? How can the Pope and all those Cardinals possibly be wrong?

(more…)

In case you’ve been in a coma over the last few weeks, we’ve had a bit of problem on the Gulf Coast. While the oil leak that developed after the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up is indeed a disaster, this tragic event is unprecedented and its causes complex. As is usually the case when it comes to a complex issues, the MSM has spent a lot of time finger-pointing without much of an idea what they’re pointing at.

For example, a May 6 AP story entitled “Feds let BP avoid filing blowout plan for Gulf rig” featured this lede:

Petrochemical giant BP didn’t file a plan to specifically handle a major oil spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project because the federal agency that regulates offshore rigs changed its rules two years ago to exempt certain projects in the central Gulf region, according to an Associated Press review of official records.

Sounds ominous, and while those carefully chosen words are perhaps technically true, they are also meaningless. (more…)

Hard as it to imagine, a recent government report was so ridiculously hysterical that even the New York Times noticed. The President’s Cancer Panel’s released a report entitled “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk,” which led to this Times’ headline:

U.S. Panel Criticized as Overstating Cancer Risks.

The verb “overstating” doesn’t go half far enough, but coming from theTimes that’s still pretty damning. The report was a collection of conjecture, unrelated factoids and, more than anything, a shrill call for more: more government, more studies and, of course, more money. Even the American Cancer Society found it a bit over the top. From the Times:

Dr. Michael Thun, an epidemiologist from the cancer society, said in an online statement that the report was “unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer,” and had presented an unproven theory — that environmentally caused cases are grossly underestimated — as if it were a fact.

(more…)

We hear a lot about the tea party movement’s supposed potential to inspire violence an awful lot from the left and their allies in the lamestream media. It’s a predictable response to a powerful grass-roots movement that they aren’t capable of understanding: crank up the fear machine boys! If bogus charges of racism won’t stick and if the tea parties themselves are peaceful – if  passionate – protests, then you have to find some theme with which to frighten independent middle-America away from a movement to which they would otherwise instinctively sympathize with.

To wit: OK, maybe the tea-partiers themselves aren’t violent, but by expressing their anger with regard to big government, they will surely inspire some fringe nut-job to violence!

Bill Clinton, in his  recent New York Times Op-Ed said that it’s fair to draw “…parallels to the time running up to Oklahoma City and a lot of the political discord that exists in our country today.” ABC News dutifully picked up on the theme:

“Watch your words,” warned ABC News, reporting that Clinton “weighed in on the angry anti-government rhetoric, ringing out from talk radio to Tea Party rallies.”

Got all that? Millions of Americans can band together to peacefully protest the incursions of swelling bureaucracies into their private lives and their government’s assumption of crippling debt, but they’re – by definition – dangerous, because they might inspire some lunatic into an act of violence. If that’s truly the issue, why doesn’t the MSM apply the same standard when it comes to another wildly-popular movement that, despite the fact that the vast majority of its adherents are peaceful activists, inspires violence not in theory, but in fact? (more…)

When it comes to environmental topics, the biggest failing of the lazy, old media is not what they tell you, but what they leave unsaid. Yesterday’s release of the American Lung Association’s State of the Air 2010 report provides textbook examples of how mainstream journalists can’t, or won’t, take the time to do their jobs. Most MSM stories covering the ALA report read like slightly modified versions of an ALA press release, which, one suspects, was probably the case. Consider this talking point that the ALA kindly provided:

The report finds that unhealthy air posed a threat to the lives and health of more than 175 million people—roughly 58 percent of the population.

Forbes’ Tim Kiladze dutifully regurgitated this misleading talking point back to readers:

The ALA found that over 175 million Americans, or 58% of the population, live in counties with unhealthy levels of either ozone or particle pollution.

That sounds pretty authoritative, doesn’t it? Downright scary too. Fifty-eight per cent of the population is at risk? But, having been trained in the sciences rather than journalism, when I read something like that, I can’t help but wonder: why aren’t people dropping in the streets if things are so bad? Or, put another way, what does a subjective term like “unhealthy air” actually mean? (more…)

If Newsweek is right, we won’t have to worry about corrupt Chicago politics much longer because, according to the magazine’s recent, rather hysterical tribute to global warming hysteria, the Windy City won’t be around much longer. Entitled “100 Places to Remember Before They Disappear,” the limited edition, “special feature” issue of the magazine is Newsweek’s latest and greatest venture into what I like to think of as environmental porn; stories and pictures designed to make tree-huggers quiver over the righteousness of their cause.

Global-warming is responsible for this supposed disappearing act of course, for a variety of contradictory reasons. In Chicago’s case, heat waves and flooding will destroy my hometown, which is pretty remarkable considering that the city is over 650 feet above sea level. When the deluge comes, perhaps we could move from the Windy City to a picturesque Italian village like, say – Principato di Lucedio? Let me check… (more…)

As a scientist, I try to maintain a relatively respectful tone when discussing the lamentable state of journalism vis-à-vis environmental and scientific issues, though I may pepper in the occasional wisecrack designed to spice things up. But when Science correspondent Eli Kintisch’s Op-Ed piece that recently ran in the Los Angeles Times was brought to my attention, I threw up repeatedly. In this case, nothing but a rant will do.

Kintisch collected a few salient facts, but he just couldn’t seem to put them together. It was like playing Pictionary with your disturbingly dimwitted cousin. You draw a creature with big, floppy ears and a fluffy tail and you trace a series of arcs that indicate hopping, but after cousin Dave peers intently at the picture for half a minute, he turns to you and ventures: “Is it a horse?”

In much the same way, Eli Kintisch observes a world in which air pollution emissions have been drastically reduced over the past forty years, duly considers the state of the planet and then concludes: we need more air pollution!

You’re likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there’s a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That’s right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution — caused primarily by burning coal — climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they’ve been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

And why do we need more air pollution, pray tell? To combat the myth of global warming, of course. (more…)

The slogan attached to NPR gabber Diane Rehm’s show is “one of her guests is always you.” Based on Rehm’s interview of Elise Labott, senior State Department producer for CNN, reality isn’t quite as welcome as you are. Consider this exchange between Rehm and Labott:

Rehm: “We do wonder whether there’s human involvement in all of these eruptions, earthquakes, storms –“

Labbot: “And how much global warming has a role in it. You know we’ve seen a lot of wacky weather but that’s just a microcosm for what’s happening around the world and how much climate change is contributing to earthquakes and volcanic ash – it’s a really good question.”

Actually, that’s the opposite of a good question. It’s an idiotic question. It’s a question that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that mainstream media personalities are about as qualified to opine on scientific topics as Roman Polanski is to weigh in on sex education programs. (more…)

Global warming skeptics like me are often asked how the mainstream media could have been so wrong about the “climate change” issue for so long. The answer is that the MSM’s fascination with global warming alarmism is nothing out the ordinary; it’s part of a decades-old pattern. The old media has been consistently, often laughably, wrong when it comes to covering environmental topics because they invariably stick to the green narrative: anyone associated with industry is ill-informed at best, or –- more often –-  just plain lying. On the other hand, the environmental movement is, in their world, the only reliable source of information.

An example of this phenomenon came to my attention recently. In a March 21 story the Chicago Tribune and the paper’s chief industry hit-man, environmental reporter Michael Hawthorne, slammed a small business located in a poor Chicago suburb over supposed ecological transgressions that make the plant sound like the second-coming of Chernobyl. For the benefit of those of you who are not fellow technological weenies, I’ll limit this summation to a couple of the broad themes. But, should you be a fellow propeller-head, a few scientific details will follow as well.

Hawthorne attacked Geneva Energy, a small power plant located in Ford Heights, which is, as he admits, “one of the poorest suburbs in the U.S.” The plant burns old tires and, while recovering energy from worn-out rubber might seem like a pretty good idea to you and me, it represents a grave threat to the citizens of Ford Heights and mother earth as far as Hawthorne and the environmental groups he champions are concerned. The supposed “problems” fit into two broad categories: (more…)

Recent revelations about the way that president Obama’s plan to weatherize U.S. homes has gotten off to a less than stellar start symbolize what’s wrong with so-called “green jobs.” Green job programs depend on government subsidies and mandates, require government oversight and, as a result of those two factors, are slightly less efficient than your average Rube Goldberg machine.

One year into the $5 billion program, the government has weatherized five per cent of the target number of homes overall, and less than fifty per cent of what was expected for 2009. The problem? Government rules, believe it or not. Gosh, who could have possibly foreseen that glitch in the plan? But, it seems that it’s difficult to figure out how much to pay contractors, how to protect historic homes and how to solve the nuances of a host of other problems for which government needs to formulate policies and procedures.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a system in which some responsible party – say, the homeowner for example – could make those decisions and save the United States the time, expense and trouble of having to do so? Wait, I seem to remember that we used to have a system something like that. It was called “capitalism,” or some such. (more…)

Let us forget, for a moment, that “Earth Hour” is a pointless exercise serving only to make environmentalists feel better about themselves by marginally reducing electrical demand for 0.01% of the year. Let us disregard, for a moment, that the basic reason for having an “Earth Hour” in the first place is fatuous, because global warming alarmism has as much to do with actual science as alchemy does. Instead, as the MSM pushes this stupidity down our gullets once again, let us consider the effects of “Earth Hour,” in terms of power production and that environment. Indeed, a sober analysis suggests that “Earth Hour” doesn’t do anything to save a planet that doesn’t need saving and that it may in fact rather increase air pollution instead of reducing it.

Let us begin with a question: why is “Earth Hour” scheduled for the evening hours?  Answer: you couldn’t do it during daylight with any credibility. Electric demand is highest during the daytime hours, therefore it’s only then that peaking units (generation assets that only operate during times of high demand) kick in to fill the gap. If “Earth Hour” were held when the sun was out, utilities would respond to the drop in demand by kicking the most expensive generating assets off of the grid. This would surely include one of our more expensive sources of power: wind turbines. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA, a part of the Department of Energy) the cost of wind power is about 50% to 100% more than the cost of coal-fired electricity. It’s obvious that, in times of peak demand, a responsible public utility looking out for consumers’ pocketbooks (and their own profits) will shut down a wind farm in deference to a more efficient, less expensive coal plant. (more…)

Is the Obama administration trying to ban sport fishing? Not at this time. Is the Obama administration setting up structures and processes that could, and probably will, eventually result in more regulatory restrictions on sport fishing? You betcha. But, with all due respect to anglers, that’s not the biggest problem with the “Interim Framework For Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning” issued by the Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce (latest version dated December 9, 2009). Government goes after industry long before it dares to subtly, oh-so-subtly, impose new restrictions on individuals. The framework, which we will now shorthand as “CMSP,” will affect off-shore drilling operations, commercial fishing and commercial shipping first and foremost.

Some conservative bloggers erupted in outrage when the report came to light, saying that – as Gateway Pundit put it – “Obama’s latest assault on your rights – he wants to ban sport fishing.” That was an overreaction, but an understandable one given the aggressive nature of this administration when it comes to environmental issues and the fact that the CMSP report specifically lists “recreational fishing” as an activity that needs to be “better managed” (page two of the report). Perhaps “better managed” translates into “leave them alone,” but one may be forgiven for thinking not.

On the other end of the spectrum, George Soros’ steno pool declared that worries about a sport fishing ban were “absurd,” as though nothing in the CMSP report could possibly have an impact on recreational fishing, even though the report itself kicked that particular door wide open. That is not to say that a ban on recreational fishing is in our immediate future, but it’s terribly naïve to believe that the CMSP framework won’t create the regulatory environment that will result in painful restrictions on the sport in the future. What does it all mean? Sit back, relax and let Dr. Environment break it down for you kids. (OK, so I don’t have an actual PhD, but seeing as how the University of Tennessee is awarding Al Gore an honorary doctorate, I’m sure that my degree just has to be in the mail).

The CMSP framework is another classic, benevolent big-government gambit. It sounds great, appears to encompass everyone’s concerns and the end results of the exhaustive process proposed are supposedly the epitome of noble. Consider a few features of the program: (more…)

Here’s my problem with NBC political correspondent Chuck Todd’s blast against “Drudge driven journalism:” the alternative that Todd attempts to defend isn’t actually journalism. If Chuck Todd’s network and the rest of the MSM really had been practicing journalism all along, there would never have been a vacuum for people like Matt Drudge, Andrew Breitbart, etc. to fill.

Many people would like to define the term “journalism” as the unbiased dissemination of information, but it’s never been that. For a very long time publications made no secret of their political points of view. Historically, America had Whig newspapers, Republican newspapers and Democratic newspapers. All of them spun the news in a particular direction and readers knew it. The situation has not changed, except that the legacy media desperately and unconvincingly clings to the notion that it is detached from any ideology and therefore the sole arbiter of truth. No matter where they fall on the the political spectrum, Americans know better. That’s the reason the Drudge Report, Breitbart’s “Big” sites and, to put a point on it, liberal outlets like Huff Po and the Daily Kos thrive.

My own field of expertise provides an object lesson in why legacy journalism is fading into irrelevance as “Drudge-driven journalism” fills the void in a world hungry for knowledge. The MSM’s coverage of science in general and environmental issues in particular has been abysmal for years. Journalists are, by training and inclination, generalists. How many times have members of the old media tried to explain away slanted coverage of the non-existent global warming crisis by declaring that they of course are not scientists and can not be therefore expected to personally understand the issue? Instead, they insist that they must rely on experts and if you have a problem with the way they’re covering the issue, go talk to the experts. (more…)

If you live in a coal state, make no mistake about it: Barack Obama and the Administrator of his USEPA, Lisa Jackson, are looking to take you down, by any means – direct or indirect – at their disposal. Among the schemes in the pipeline is this: a proposal that would make burning coal to produce power a much more expensive proposition, by attaching billions of dollars more costs before the residue of the coal-burning process could be reused or disposed of. Ironically, Obama and Jackson are on the threshold of making an ill-considered decision that would undermine one of the most successful recycling programs in the history of the nation.

USEPA is deciding whether or not to declare the ash that remains after burning coal a hazardous waste. The agency began considering reclassification following a disastrous release of 1.7 million cubic yards of fly ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston plant, a large coal-fired power station located east of Knoxville, Tennessee, in December 2008. That release, caused by the failure of an earthen retention wall, caused many environmental groups to renew their call for the USEPA to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste.

The Sierra Club, and other environmental groups, maintain that this action is necessary because coal ash contains, among other things:”…arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, boron, thallium, and aluminum – toxic heavy metals that have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders, and which clearly threaten nearby communities and ecosystems.” (more…)

A few weeks ago, Lord Christopher Monckton told me a distressing story about a visit to Haiti. He said that poverty in that troubled nation is so pervasive that many of its inhabitants have been reduced to eating mud pies. The term “mud pies” is not slang for a local staple made from locally-grown cereal crops. We’re talking about people reduced to eating actual dirt. Monckton watched Haitians form mud into the shape of pies, mixing in a sprinkling of whatever nutritional foodstuffs might be available (like oil and salt) and then “cooking” the mud pies in the sun.

Sounds like further evidence of the devastating effects that the January 12 earthquake had on Haiti, right? Not really. Oh, did I forget to mention? This was the situation in Haiti before the earthquake hit, as this 2008 story that appeared in National Geographic documents.

Between 2000 and 2010 the World Food Price Index, the inflation-adjusted measure of how expensive food is across the globe, almost doubled. In 2000 the index sat at a value of 90. As of January 2010, the index had risen to a value of 172. That a 91% increase in the cost of food over the course of a decade.

While Americans and citizens of other industrialized nations may be able to absorb that kind of price increase, the poor living in the Third World cannot. Tragic cases of starvation like the ones Monckton witnessed in pre-earthquake Haiti are hardly unique. Dwindling, more expensive food supplies have led to an increasing number of food riots around the world. More and more people are dying, simply because they can not afford basic sustenance. How could this happen? (more…)

When even the New York Times finally picks up the pungent aroma of a scandal, you’ve gotta figure that the stench is overwhelming. Recently, the Times decided this bit of news was finally fit to repeat: that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been playing fast and loose with scientific data regarding “climate change.” That story has only been buzzing about the blogosphere for weeks now, so hats off to the “newspaper of record” for taking notice of the situation with such alacrity.

This is a milestone of sorts. The Times has – finally – chosen to publish a story about global warming that did not primarily consist of Andrew Revkin’s fawning assurances that alarmists were the guardians of holy writ and skeptics are alchemists in the employ of Exxon-Mobil. Prior to this happy event, I thought the chances of the Senate passing a cap and trade bill were slim, but that the possibility still existed. Now that the New York Times has finally acknowledged that global warming skeptics may have a point or two after all, we may administer last rites to Waxman-Markey. Good riddance.

But how did we get here? Al Gore’s hucksterism and that silly movie of his, which any legitimate scientist – even among the alarmist crowd – has to laugh at, deserve a lot of the blame. But the biggest problem was the way that the old media and policy makers embraced the collectivist agenda of the IPCC. This shameful episode has been an object lesson of what happens when we follow Obama’s doctrine of following the lead of the would-be global government crowd, rather than letting America and her allies lead the globe toward a bright future. (more…)

Dear 111^th Congress,

I know that you are very busy these days pondering new ways to screw up health care and figuring out exactly how much money you need to spend in order to reduce the deficit, but you might want to take a moment to examine what’s going on at the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

You remember USEPA, right? Your predecessors created it and gave it the authority to ensure that America has clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. The Agency has been pretty darn successful at fulfilling that mission and it employs armies of scientists, attorneys, technicians and other professionals to accomplish the tasks assigned to it. Paying all of those troops is expensive, as in several billion dollars worth of expensive, but seeing as how new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has inflated the Agency’s budget by almost 50%, there would seem to be little reason for USEPA to outsource its authority. Yet, that’s exactly what has been going on, and I thought that someone should bring the situation to your attention.

Now as we all know, George W. Bush was the worst environmental President in history. Unfortunately, this assertion is complicated by the embarrassing fact that the amount of pollutants in the nation’s air was reduced to the lowest levels that we have ever seen since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. It therefore behooves USEPA and the current administration to redefine the term “clean air” by redefining the standards that determine what is clean and what is dirty. Administrator Jackson has tackled this problem, publishing a new standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and proposing new standards for ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO₂). (more…)