Twelve months ago, The Daily Climate, a website that produces and tracks media stories about climate change, declared that 2010 was “the year climate coverage ‘fell off the map.’” The downward spiral continued in 2011, a more recent analysis by the site found.
The number of articles, blog posts, editorials, and op-eds “declined roughly 20 percent from 2010’s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009’s peak” according to a review of The Daily Climate’s global English-language media archive. According to a post about the findings by the site’s editor, Douglas Fischer:
The declining coverage came amid bouts of extreme weather across the globe - historic wildfires in Arizona, drought in Texas, famine in the Horn of Africa - and flashes of political frenzy. Australia’s approval of a carbon tax, the U.S. presidential election, a Congressional inquiry into the failed solar startup Solyndra all generated significant coverage within the mainstream press, but it was not enough to stem the larger trend.
Coverage dropped almost across the board among the top climate news producers. “Reuters, perennially the most prolific outlet for climate news, was again the top source in 2011,” The Daily Climate found, but even at more than three stories per day, its output was down 27 percent from 2010. The New York Times placed second, with a 15 percent decline. The Guardian was third, with a 21 percent decline. The Associated Press was fourth, with a 17 percent decline. And E&E News was fifth, with a 29 percent decline.
[Update: It’s important to note that these results are based on a review of The Daily Climate’s archives and not the various outlets’ actual productivity. As Fischer noted in his post, the site’s “aggregation is meant to provide a broad sampling of the day’s coverage, not a comprehensive list.” In addition, some outlets such as E&E News keep much of their content behind a pay wall. Thus, the rankings may not be perfectly accurate.]
There were a couple exceptions to the trend Down Under. The Sydney Morning Herald placed sixth overall in total output, with a 21 percent jump from 2010. And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation increased its climate coverage by 60 percent. In aggregate, however, the picture was dismal:
Last year at least 7,140 journalists and opinion writers published some 19,000 stories on climate change, compared to more than 11,100 reporters who filed 32,400 stories in 2009, according to DailyClimate.org.
The decline was seen across almost all benchmarks measured by the news service: 20 percent fewer reporters covered the issue in 2011 than in 2010, 20 percent fewer outlets published stories, and the most prolific reporters on the climate change beat published 20 percent fewer stories.
Particularly noticeable was the silence from the nation’s editorial boards: In 2009, newspapers published 1,229 editorials on the topic. Last year, they published less than 580 - half as many, according to DailyClimate.org’s archives.
In 2011, the five most prolific climate writers, in descending order, were the Guardian’s Fiona Harvey, The New York Times’s Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald, the BBC’s Richard Black, and Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn. But “the pool of most-productive climate reporters - those writing at least 30 stories a year, or about a story every 12 days,” dropped to fifty-five from sixty-six in 2010 and eighty-six in 2009, Fischer wrote.
Other media analyses support The Daily Climate’s findings. The University of Colorado’s Maxwell Boykoff, who has tracked climate coverage in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times since 2000, charted a downward trend at the five papers in 2011.
And Drexel University’s Robert Brulle, who has tracked climate coverage on NBC, CBS, and ABC since the 1980s, told Fischer that the three network news stations broadcast 14 climate change stories with a total air time of 32.5 minutes in 2011, down from 32 stories and 90.5 minutes in 2010 and well below the 2007 peak of 147 segments totaling 386 minutes. “It’s an enormous drop,” Brulle said.
- 1
- 2
"As a North American reporter in Durban and Cancun, I felt pretty lonely."
No-one wants to hear how they will be made to pay and pay and pay for fictitious sins.
The developing countries reporters outnumbered you? I cannot think why.......
#1 Posted by Henry Galt, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 09:06 AM
I think the inevitability of policy paralysis has affected the coverage since it's been shown that the political process is not responsive to compelling data nor information and it refuses to act regardless of popular interest. The political process is dominated by economic interests, national interests, and campaign finance, therefore there is a feeling that these climate meets and alarming signals in climate data are not influential, thus not news.
The international process is frozen, the European process was making progress until the crash, the only processes which are functioning well are the local ones. At least now some regulations are pricing the poisonous emissions of coal, the cost of alternative energy production is dropping to wholesale coal levels, and consumers are making more climate conscious decisions, but journalism has to face that there will not be influential news coming out of the political process until they start shining a light on the parties responsible for the paralysis, as the center for public integrity has done:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/
And, in the meantime, we have to ask are we going to write stories which are "influential" or are we going to write the stories which should be?
Because Judy Miller wrote influential stories during the push for the Iraq War, how did that turn out?
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 11:02 AM
Personally, I think we'll get more climate change stories if and when the climate starts changing.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 03:56 PM
I think finally people are starting to realise what a crock climate alarmism is and how they are being ripped off.
#4 Posted by Ralph, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 05:42 PM
Hey, speaking of crocks and alarmism, how did that Weapons of Mass Destruction thing, that you freedom fry eating, flag humping, right wing freak jobs were hyperventilating about, turn out? About as well as the Bush Economic Miracle?
Why don't you leave the technical stuff to people who subscribe to concepts of 1800's science and above such as evolution and the greenhouse effect.
In the meantime, from the communists at Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/01/05/climate-change-and-the-trillion-dollar-disruption/
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 07:03 PM
Thimble should move to Australia and get a job with his watermelon (green outside but pinkos inside) mates on the the Australian Broardcasting Commission who are leading the struggle on behalf of the Greens for a new world order. At least then his abusive tirades won't offend anybody who cares.
#6 Posted by Bernard , CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 07:32 PM
This, though on an unrelated subject, I thought was unseful for understanding the rejectionist mindset.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/financial_regulation034477.php
"While the vast majority of economists and financial experts view the 2008 collapse of the banking sector, and the ensuing Great Recession, as the result of decades of unrestrained, unregulated experimentation by Wall Street firms, the right rejects this view. Conservatives see the crash as a cautionary tale about government intervention in the housing markets, in which the subprime mortgage boom was egged on by community organizers and government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae. That George W. Bush was one of the biggest backers of “the ownership society” and that the much-maligned community activists were actually shouting early warnings about problems in the housing market are inconvenient facts to be ignored. As if suffering from a form of ideological color blindness, wherever there are large market failures in the current infrastructure of our financial [or climate or environmental or etc... ] system[s], conservatives can’t see the problems themselves, only the presence of the government."
The march of progress will ever be blocked while we tolerate the march of ignorant Dittoheads stepping in the way.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 07:39 PM
Fact: we add more carbon to the atmosphere every year. We are up to 7 gigatons/yr.
Fact: That added carbon changes the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Fact: That added CO2 absorbs slightly more radiation every year, causing the atmosphere to warm.
Fact: The effect is slow to build and hard to reverse. (In human terms. In geological terms, it happens really fast.)
None of what I have written above is scientifically controversial or tricky. It is just unpopular.
But waiting for the really bad effects to manifest themselves is just absurd. It's like a resident of Japan saying he'd deal with the tsunami when he actually sees it. The longer we wait to address this, the more expensive it will be to address it. One would think the party of "don't pass our debts to our grandchildren" would apply that same thought here.
#8 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 09:59 PM
I happen to be staying tonight at the Courtyard by Marriott at Virginia Beach and looking from the balcony I notice a couple of important things:
1. Sea level hasn't risen a bit in the last 400 years.
2. Polar bear carcasses aren't washing ashore.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 11:04 PM
To Bernard @7.32. Spot on mate, the worst aspect of our ABC is it's 100% Govt funded. The rancid left being as they are infiltrated, then vomited their green left bile all over us. Decent Australia want this organization privatized A.S.A.P. BBC London is worse however, they have tied up their employees pension fund in green energy schemes. Tell the truth and you retire poor.
#10 Posted by Stuart.W, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 11:48 PM
"I happen to be staying tonight at the Courtyard by Marriott at Virginia Beach"
Did you go by plane or did you take the Northwest passage?
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/NorthernPassages.asp
"1. Sea level hasn't risen a bit in the last 400 years."
Yeah, it has,
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentslc.html
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 11:50 PM
PS.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2003
"The Arctic has seen a stunning amount of sea ice loss in recent years, due to melting and unfavorable winds that have pushed large amounts of ice out of the region. Forty percent of the sea ice was missing in September 2007, compared to September of 1980. This is an area equivalent to about 44% of the contiguous U.S., or 71% of the non-Russian portion of Europe. Such a large area of open water is bound to cause significant impacts on weather patterns, due to the huge amount of heat and moisture that escapes from the exposed ocean into the atmosphere over a multi-month period following the summer melt."
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2001
"The fraction of the country covered by extremely wet conditions (top 10% historically) was 32% during the period January through November, ranking as the 2nd highest such coverage in the past 100 years. And if you weren't washing away in a flood, you were baking in a drought in 2011--portions of sixteen states had precipitation more than twenty inches below average (Figure 1.) The fraction of the country covered by extremely dry conditions (top 10% historically) was 22% during the period January through November, ranking as the 8th highest in the past 100 years. The combined fraction of the country experiencing either severe drought or extremely wet conditions was 56% averaged over the January - November period--the highest in a century of record keeping. Climate change science predicts that if the Earth continues to warm as expected, wet areas will tend to get wetter, and dry areas will tend to get drier--so this year's side-by-side extremes of very wet and very dry conditions should grow increasingly common in the coming decades."
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 12:02 AM
Fact: we add more carbon to the atmosphere every year. We are up to 7 gigatons/yr.
#8 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 09:59 PM
-----------------------------------------------------
That must seem like a lot of CO2 to you. What is that as compared to the mass of the entire atmosphere?
56% of the mass of CO2 resulting from combustion is O2, which was already present in the atmosphere. This isn't really very important in terms of the so-called greenhouse effect of CO2, but it is interesting in that it let warmists try to make it seem like man is somehow pumping some inconceivably large quantity of "pollutants" into the atmosphere.
#13 Posted by Justa Joe, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 11:25 AM
That would be because of the general recognition by the public that repetitious alarmism about ordinary weather, coupled with extraordinary demands by politicians, is simply obnoxious, if not pernicious.
#14 Posted by pat, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 11:26 AM
"That must seem like a lot of CO2 to you. What is that as compared to the mass of the entire atmosphere?"
The answer to that is "Irrevalent". If it only takes a vial of nerve gas to kill a thousand people, then the amount of nerve gas in a room, as a percentage of the contained air, is irrelavent. What matters is the gas's potency at given concentrations.
Have you measured the thermal potency of carbon dioxide at different concentrations? Have you modeled the effect of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide based on it's thermal potency?
"56% of the mass of CO2 resulting from combustion is O2, which was already present in the atmosphere."
Let's forget the meaningless concepts you have of chemistry and start with simple math. Carbon has a weight of 12. Oxygen has a weight of 16. Because there are two oxygen atoms, co2 has a combined weight of 44.
Therefore, the percentage mass of O2 in a CO2 molecule is 32/44 = 73%.
We can't expect to have a productive discussion about climate science when we are showing difficulty with basic math.
Good day.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 01:39 PM
Well Thimbles, where to begin. It seems that if the anthropogenic thoery was worth a hill of beans then the ever increasing CO2 would be having a dramatic effect on our climate. The point is however, that is isn't.
When one ignores the "adjustments" that Hansen and his boys are continuously making to the historical record one finds that the temperature for the last 10 to 12 years has been level.
Taking that into account along with the Vostock ice core data that shows a 400 to 800 year LAG from the onset of warming to the subsequent rise in CO2 levels and it becomes patently clear that increased CO2 levels is a RESULT
of warming and not the driver.
You may attempt to baffle the electorate with BS, but BS it remains nonetheless. The fact remains that there is no emopirical data to support the theory of AGW, it as all based on computer models of dubious quality.
A fundamental axiom of science is "correlation does not equal causation" but AGW theory is built completely upon that assumption.
Good Day to you Sir!
#16 Posted by skippy, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 02:45 PM
After reading through Thimbles post, one can be thrilled to not be so narrow minded and easily influenced with no evidence as this individule is. Where is Thimbles logical approach to this question if he believes that a trace gas, CO2, that is one and one-half times heavier than air and makes up a paltry .036% of the atmosphere is the driver of something as complex as the earth's climate?
Sea Level Drop
The latest NASA satellite data show that sea levels have dropped 6 mm over the last year – the biggest drop ever recorded since satellite data has been taken. This is hardly the kind of acceleration Rahmstorf had in mind. You’d think the media would be falling all over themselves to report this good news. They have not. Only a tiny few German media outlets have reported the plummeting sea level news.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/31/der-spiegel-global-warming-now-causes-sea-level-drop-through-weather-shifts/
#17 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 04:44 AM
Talk about irrelevant. What does this mean in regard to CO2? Only a far left type with no clue could answer that.
"The answer to that is "Irrevalent". If it only takes a vial of nerve gas to kill a thousand people, then the amount of nerve gas in a room, as a percentage of the contained air, is irrelavent. What matters is the gas's potency at given concentrations." Like I say, the topic is CO2 and not a nerve gas
This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn't it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 392 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
#18 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 04:54 AM
It will be interesting to see how Thimbles explains this FACT from the recent past.
"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."
who reported this ? the IPCC, the Meteorological Office.... No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
Friday, August 05, 2011
"The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heaviliy relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artice or see the link to the original PDF below:"
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-
#19 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 05:01 AM
Hansen’s Global Temperature
For example, some suggest that the ‘medieval warm period’ was considerably warmer than even 1998. Of course, this is inconvenient to climate change believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD - yet the Earth still warmed.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz1UuOjrdU9
#20 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 05:04 AM
It seems that Thimbles can veer off of the topic; therefore, this is in answer to that falsehood that was put forth in post #7.
"The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act."
"In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans."
"Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. The facts are that when proven economic principles are not adhered to, this is what we get and there is plenty of blame to go around.
#21 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 05:12 AM
"Coverage dropped almost across the board among the top climate news producers. "
Not in communist Australia.
#22 Posted by Sean McHugh, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 05:50 AM
Thimbles: This makes your http://www.wunderground.com/climate/NorthernPassages.asp a bit on the suspect side. Keep in mind that subs have not been able to surface when ever they have felt like it at the pole.
"Seven months after its first voyage to the pole, the Skate sailed there again. In that 12-day, 3,090-mile voyage, it surfaced 10 times. This time the stop at the pole took on a sentimental character.
On March 17, 1959, as the Skate floated between ice drifts, crew members fulfilled a wish of Sir Hubert Wilkins, a polar explorer in the early 20th century, who had died three months before. Sir Hubert had hoped to reach the North Pole by submarine, but never made it. Atop the globe, in the half light of the polar winter, the crew of the Skate scattered Sir Hubert’s ashes into a fierce wind."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/us/16calvert.html
#23 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 06:54 AM
This is the link to see Hansen’s Global Temperature:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm
#24 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 07:09 AM
Reuters climate scare production at 3 scares a day, down from 4 - thanks, that describes the media perfectly. We would be better off without them.
#25 Posted by DirkH, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 07:15 AM
"Hopefully, climate coverage will see a similar uptick in 2012."
For the love of God, why?
#26 Posted by Steve Case, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 08:39 AM
Twinkle fingers down Thimbles. As a progressive I'm perplexed at those that choose to dwell in the past.
AGW alarmism is prehistoric....relegated to accompany Aztec sacrifices, sorcery and the Salem witch hunts in bizare historical practices. The hockey 'team' has overun their 15 minute time slot - go to break. Far past time this overly hyped non-story moved from the news media to the History Channel.
#27 Posted by Hugh K, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 10:38 AM
Wow, kick the hive mind, expect the hornets. Unfortunately, I don't have the time today for responses, IRL has got me tied up. Keep it up with the mindless stinging however; A+ for effort.
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 01:55 PM
My family has been going to Virginia Beach for more than 60 years...
The sea level hasn't risen a bit. PERIOD.
There are NOT polar bear carcasses washing ashore.
The swimmers and surfers are NOT being scalded by acidified seawater.
The AGW silliness is nothing but Communism 2.0 - just the latest leftist attack on capitalism.
As Phil Jones, the "dispassionate IPCC Warmingist-in-Chief" plainly stated, he wishes the world would cooperate with the Warmingist agenda and actually, you know, warm up some, so that he could have the emotional satisfaction of seeing the grins wiped off the faces of his critics.
Now you would think that the LAST thing a "dispassionate scientist" who honestly believes that global warming is a "bad thing" would wish to see is.... Global warming, right?
Not so, as his email makes clear. Jone's emotional need for sticking it to his critics clearly outweighs his feigned public concern for Mother Earth and her drowning polar bears.
And THIS, ladies and gentleman, is the man behind the Warmingist's purported "consensus science"...
The SAME guy who plainly admitted that the IPCC authors were chosen not on merit, but instead on the need to mollify the third world nations of the UN, and that the entirely predictable and utterly unsurprising result of this political interference with the ersatz "consensus science" was that half of the IPCC's authors, in his estimation, were incapable of even writing a paper...
Dispassionate consensus science is a wonderful thing to behold, isn't it?
Now the leftist "professional journalists" have ignored these little slices of reality nicely.. Along with other similar stories of import. For example, when a Nobel laureate physicist recently resigned his APA membership over the organization's silly Warmingist agenda... Did you read about in the NYT? Or the WaPo?
Hell no! Not a damned peep about it!
But thermometers don't read newspapers. Without any statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years (as even Phil Jones was forced to concede is indeed the REALITY), the Warmingists are having a hard time getting ink, even though the fawning press is solidly behind them.
The trouble the lefties have is that nobody gives a crap about things that aren't happening, and nobody is going to pay for news of things that aren't happening.
That's just how it is.
If and when the world actually starts warming or something, then perhaps we'll see some more coverage.
#29 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 03:17 PM
"Wow, kick the hive mind, expect the hornets. Unfortunately, I don't have the time today for responses, IRL has got me tied up. Keep it up with the mindless stinging however; A+ for effort." #28 Posted by Thimbles on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 01:55 PM
Thimbles lets one in on the problem with their type, they have no "time today" to look into the facts and they sure do not want to hear any that may not coincide with their flawed, preconceived notion of what the facts are regarding this scam called anthropogenic global warming. If they did look into the facts, then they would not post the nonsense that makes them look like what they are, mindless sheep being lead around by charlatans like Al Gore and James Hansen, who may not be total fools because they make much money off of this scam while the Thimbles of the world just make them selves appear to be the gullible fools that they are with the inability to use logic to determine what is the truth about this or about any other issue.
Thimbles could look into this site for an indication of how CO2 behaves in a column of air and then mention again how it is the driver of the earth's climate. How stupid can some be?
"ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2"
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
#30 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sun 8 Jan 2012 at 05:18 AM
"Thimbles lets one in on the problem with their type, they have no "time today" to look into the facts"
No, I actually have had no time lately. In the past I have had time to respond to oft repeated bs:
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/wsj_marginalizes_muller.php#comments
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/uea_e-mails_fail_to_provoke.php#comments
and it's had little effect on the authors who continue to repeat their boring bs as if it's fresh and edgy. You and your hornet buddies puked all over this thread and if people really want me to clean up, I might, but I gotta say that I don't see much point in it when we're talking about TOTALLY debunked stuff like the CRA in a climate thread. You wouldn't have seen me attempt to debate Terri Schivo and I'm not inclined to debate you for similar reasons.
"My family has been going to Virginia Beach for more than 60 years...
The sea level hasn't risen a bit. PERIOD."
Dude, when given evidence that there was pervasive fraud in the finance sector which was condoned by weak regulators and enabled by weak regulations, what you see is an excuse to shout, "We need less government".
Forgive us, but your vision isn't so trustworthy.
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 8 Jan 2012 at 01:13 PM
About the one year sea level decline:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth/posts/post_1323211578062.html
#32 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 8 Jan 2012 at 01:24 PM
Don't take it so hard Thimbles. You're just livin' in the past man! You're hung up on some Algore clown from the nineties. Chill out on this global warming.....er....climate change....er...global climate disruption and take up some 21st century hip past-time to save the planet like Alec Baldwin did. He went carbon neutral simply by playing Words With Friends.
#33 Posted by Twinkles down, CJR on Sun 8 Jan 2012 at 08:00 PM
Good Lord, Thimbles, certainly you recall posting this:( #7 Posted by Thimbles on Thu 5 Jan 2012 at 07:39 PM) "This, though on an unrelated subject, I thought was unseful for understanding the rejectionist mindset." then you go on to say: "I might, but I gotta say that I don't see much point in it when we're talking about TOTALLY debunked stuff like the CRA in a climate thread." You, Thimbles, are a real hoot and I now see where you name comes from because one could put everything that you know in one, a thimble.
#34 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Sun 8 Jan 2012 at 09:19 PM
Gee, you got me J Doug. Your crack on my user handle makes you the funniest man alive. I'll bet the theme from rocky plays while you type.
Luckily, I don't care about my user handle.
What I do care about is disinformation and the CRA is TOTAL CRAP according to everyone who's seriously looked into it.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_community_reinvestment_act_r.php
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/yet_again_fannie_and_frannie_d.php
You haven't, which is kinda evident by the way you and the other hornets parse climate science over a six pack and football.
#35 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 9 Jan 2012 at 03:05 AM
Good Lord, Thimbles, you can't care much about disinformation about the Community Reinvestment Act if you want to believe information that comes from the San Francisco board members of the Federal Reserve. Tell me, Thimbles, what economic disaster, going back to the great depression, has the Fed averted and aren’t they the ones that set economic policy with their monetary policy? They sure didn't do much to avert the last disaster that was caused by the banks being forced to lend to unqualified applicants, in spite of your biased and therefore useless research. Take a look at this and then get back to me, and this is real time.
Franklin Raines - was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie
Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae
when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's
accounting activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at
$240 million in benefits.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard
"was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that
would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations
by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since
concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger
bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's golden parachute was estimated at $20 million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later
forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that
Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998
compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million
and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently
under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while
serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's golden parachute was estimated
at $28 million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES?
Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Adviser.
TIM HOWARD?
Howard is a Chief Economic Adviser to Obama under Franklin Raines.
JIM JOHNSON?
Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Adviser and was selected
to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
These, Thimble, are "Your Knd of People".
#36 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Mon 9 Jan 2012 at 10:31 PM
"Take a look at this and then get back to me"
You see, this is why talking to you about complicated issues like climate science is even more pointless than talking about them with padi.
Not even padi would try and pass off the fwd: fwd: fwd: emails in his inbox as an argument.
Because padi would know that even the most basic fact checkers:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp
would debunk every word after 'look at this'.
Is this amateur hour or what?
#37 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 11:08 AM
Good Lord, Thimbles, you must be urinating down both legs with excitement. You have finally come up with something that you are 1/2 right about, and for that you should be ecstatic since it is the first time ever this has happened to you. It was an easy mistake to make on my part because we are dealing with one of the poorest one term presidents to have ever tainted the sacred White House who has never even run a lemon aid stand for experience. He appointed a tax cheat to be head of the Treasury and therefor the IRS. How much worse than that can one get? Maybe being the first President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected Officials; the first President to hide his medical, educational and travel records; the first President to coddle America's enemies while alienating America's allies ; the first President to publicly bow to America's enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag; the first President to go on multiple global apology tours; the first President to go on 17 lavish taxpayer paid vacations, Wednesday date nights, and White House parties for friends; the first President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin and not even know the proper action to take when the National Anthem is played; the first President to have 22 taxpayer paid personal servants for his wife.; the first President to keep a taxpayer paid dog trainer for $102,000.00 a year when he could have had Franklin Raines do the job for him could well make one believe what I posted
Where these people ended up after they fleeced the American tax payer should have been in Federal Prison doing 10 to 20 years instead of receiving golden parachutes valued at $240 million in benefits. Only a brain dead, far left liberal could love this guy, and I know that you do.
#38 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Wed 11 Jan 2012 at 10:43 PM
Good Lord, Thimbles, I guess I need to present you with a few of your hero's accomplishments:
A gallon of regular gasoline the day Obama was inaugurated
cost $1.79 on average. Today: $3.59, a 100% increase. The number of food
stamp recipients rose since Obama took office from 31,983,716 to
43,200,878, a 35% jump. Long term unemployment soared 146% from
2,600,000 to 6,400,000. Staggering "hope and change".
Americans in poverty rose 9.5% from 39,800,000 to 43,600,000,
and the number of unemployed jumped 25% from 11,616,000 to 14,485,000 as
of August 31, 2011. The number of unemployed blacks rose from 12.6% at
the end of Bush's term to 15.8% today. Our national debt is up 34% from
10.627 trillion to 14,278 trillion.
I'm sure you are a "green" type, take a look at this:
"How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.
The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization. If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain." Great way to create jobs, in Mexico, right Thimbles.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46761
This is the stupidest one yet.
"With PR successes like the Fisker Karma, does the Department of Energy need to worry about PR failures like Solyndra? ABC News and others are reporting that electric car company Fisker, which received a $529M federal loan guarantee with the approval of the Obama administration, is assembling its first line of $96,985 base-priced hybrid cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work. According to Green Car Reports, Fisker said the EPA had rated the Karma at 54 MPGe (MPG-equivalent) when running on electricity from its battery pack, and that the EPA-rated electric range would be 32 miles. Omitted from the press release was the 20-mpg rating for a Karma running on power from its range-extending gasoline engine."
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/10/21/1555210/529m-doe-loan-spawns-97k-made-in-finland-cars
Besides this over priced, unneeded vehicle being made in Finland, what do you think of that gas mileage,
Thimbles?
Go Snoop this and see what you come up with.
#39 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Wed 11 Jan 2012 at 10:57 PM
Good Lord, Thimbles, you say: "You see, this is why talking to you about complicated issues like climate science is even more pointless than talking about them with padi." How can "your" take on climate change be complicated when you believe that a trace gas, CO2, that makes up only .036% of the total atmosphere, that is 1 & 1/2 times heavier that the rest of the atmosphere (ever consider Thimbles, that there could well be intelligent design because ask your self, with the aid of Snoops, where the plants that this gas are essential for are located) and is essential for life on earth as we have come to enjoy it?
You, being unable to focus, led this discussion that had to do with logical people abandoning your view of anthropogenic global warming in light of logical explanations, especially when taken in the context of just what has happened in the past regarding the earth's climate during its long 4.5 billion years of existence when obviously there was no anthropogenic factor, at all; such as the beginning and the end of the last ice age to the financial collapse of recent time. Maybe a delusional far left mind can come up with the connection; but, rational people fail to see it.
"Hey, speaking of crocks and alarmism, how did that Weapons of Mass Destruction thing, that you freedom fry eating, flag humping, right wing freak jobs were hyperventilating about, turn out? About as well as the Bush Economic Miracle?"
"This, though on an unrelated subject, I thought was unseful for understanding the rejectionist mindset.
"While the vast majority of economists and financial experts view the 2008 collapse of the banking sector….." Keep on the medication and DO try to focus, Thimbles.
Coincidentally, every lab experiment every done trying to correlate “warming” with CO2 has failed! Can you can show any empirical test results that have not failed this test? (NOTE: not computer models or explanations; test results.) Can you supply the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing? Everyone is well aware of IR radiation on CO2 and that CO2 infused atmospheres cool slower but to date there has not been one reproducible experiment that links CO2 to warming in the atmosphere, a rather inconvenient fact, wouldn’t you say?
#40 Posted by J Doug, CJR on Wed 11 Jan 2012 at 11:48 PM