Me­dia com­plic­ity in Cli­mate­gate cover-up

The Washington Times Weekly - - Editorials -

Atale of de­stroyed doc­u­ments, fraud, con­spir­acy and the mis­use of mil­lions of gov­ern­ment dol­lars would seem to have all the juicy in­gre­di­ents of a scan­dal that jour­nal­ists would kill to cover. How­ever, the main­stream me­dia ap­par­ently doesn’t think that Cli­mate­gate is news. ABC News hasn’t deemed the story news­wor­thy. Nei­ther has CBS nor NBC. If Amer­i­cans only got their news from the net­works, they would not know about the glob­al­warm­ing fraud or would merely think there was a sim­ple mis­un­der­stand­ing about what sci­en­tists meant in some vague e-mails.

Never mind that two ma­jor uni­ver­si­ties have at least tem­po­rar­ily re­moved prom­i­nent aca­demics from head­ing ma­jor cli­mate re­search fa­cili- ties. Never mind that there are real ques­tions raised about the United Na­tions In­ter­gov­ern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change’s (IPCC) con­tro­ver­sial as­sess­ment re­port that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion and global-warm­ing ad­vo­cates have con­tin­u­ally hyped in or­der to ad­vance their case for new global reg­u­la­tions to cur­tail pur­ported global warm­ing.

Lib­eral news agen­cies might be cast­ing a blind eye at this con­tro­versy, but even left-wing co­me­di­ans such as “The Daily Show’s” Jon Ste­wart take th­ese events se­ri­ously enough to make fun of the de­fenses be­ing of­fered by the sci­en­tists caught in the scan­dal. Take one of Mr. Ste­wart’s jokes re­gard­ing the now in­fa­mous e-mail about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each se­ries [. . .] to hide the de­cline [in tem­per­a­ture].” A Dec. 8 repar­tee fol­lows:

Mr. Ste­wart: “It’s noth­ing. He was just us­ing a trick to hide the de­cline. It is just sci­en­tist speak for us­ing a stan­dard sta­tis­ti­cal tech­nique re­cal­i­brat­ing data in or­der to trick you into not know­ing about the de­cline. But here is what is great about sci­ence in dis­agree­ment. We go back and look at the raw data.”

An­nouncer: “Uni­ver­sity sci­en­tists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.”

Jon Ste­wart: “Why would you go and throw out data from the 1980s? I still have Pent­houses from the 1970s.”

De­spite cracks on late-night TV, the scan­dal is not con­sid­ered news­wor­thy by the ma­jor tele­vi­sion net­works. The Me­dia Re­search Cen­ter re­ported that through Dec. 8, “none of the broad­cast net­work week­day morn­ing and evening news shows ad­dressed Cli­mate­gate or the in­crim­i­nat­ing [East Anglia cli­mate sci­en­tist Phil] Jones de­vel­op­ment. [. . .] This marked 12 days since the in­for­ma­tion was first un­cov­ered that they have ig­nored this global scan­dal.”

The net­works found plenty of air­time to cover ru­mored fam­ily prob­lems plagu­ing pro­fes­sional golfer Tiger Woods. Yet, even though there is cli­mate-reg­u­la­tion leg­is­la­tion pend­ing in Congress that could cost Amer­i­cans tril­lions of dol­lars, net­work pro­duc­ers don’t see any­thing news­wor­thy in a scan­dal ex­pos­ing fraud in glob­al­warm­ing re­search. Such omis­sions make main­stream news com­plicit in the cover-up.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.