Reuters has long been one of the most prolific producers of climate change journalism, leading The New York Times and the Guardian for most climate-centric articles in 2011. But a new assessment lends credence to recent claims that the newswire is pulling back its coverage after the addition of a global-warming skeptic to the company’s editorial management.
On Tuesday, Media Matters for America ran a search of Reuters archives and found that the newswire had reduced its coverage of climate change-related issues by almost 50 percent in 2012. The watchdog website searched Reuters archives for the terms “climate change” and “global warming” during a six-month period between October 2010 and April 2011, and a comparable six-month span in 2012.

The factchecking expedition was ignited by David Fogarty, a Singapore-based correspondent who covered climate change for Reuters until 2012. Last week, Fogarty took to The Baron, an independent blog run by former employees of Reuters, to describe what he identified as a change in editorial direction after the company hired Paul Ingrassia, a veteran business reporter brought on in 2011 to revamp the company’s news strategy. Fogarty met Ingrassia last year at a work function, where the then-deputy editor in chief (now managing editor) identified himself as a climate-change skeptic. “Not a rabid skeptic, just someone who wanted to see more evidence mankind was changing the global climate,” wrote Fogarty. Shortly thereafter, Fogarty wrote, it became difficult for him to get his reporting on the environment into print:
From very early in 2012, I was repeatedly told that climate and environment stories were no longer a top priority for Reuters and I was asked to look at other areas. Being stubborn, and passionate about my climate change beat, I largely ignored the directive.Fogarty left Reuters in mid-December, two months after his climate beat was eliminated. Two other full-time environmental correspondents have been asked to shift their beat: Alister Doyle in Oslo and Deborah Zabarenko in Washington DC, Fogarty points out. (Based on Doyle’s author page, he still continues to write about the environment regularly.)
By mid-October, I was informed that climate change just wasn’t a big story for the present, but that it would be if there was a significant shift in global policy, such as the US introducing an emissions cap-and-trade system.
Media Matters timed its survey to compare the period before Ingrassia’s April 2011 hiring to the time after the start of his reign. Though there’s no way to directly attribute the changes to Ingrassia, the timeline checks out. (He did not return repeated calls for comment.) Media Matters found that Fogarty’s article count reflects an even stronger redirection than the wire service’s coverage as a whole:
In the six months before Ingrassia joined Reuters, Fogarty wrote 51 of 675 total articles on climate change (about 8 percent). During a comparable period under Ingrassia, Fogarty wrote only 10 articles on climate change (3 percent of 353 total stories).It’s worth noting that most newsrooms around the country have reduced coverage of climate change-related issues since 2010. In 2011, Environment & Energy Publishing, which produces Greenwire, ClimateWire, and four other news services, estimated they reduced climate coverage by about 13 percent. According to an assessment published by The Daily Climate, The New York Times cut its global warming article count by 15 percent, and the Guardian slashed coverage by 21 percent that same year. (Reuters, too, dropped its climate coverage by 27 percent in 2011, before Ingrassia came aboard.)

If Reuters need not look for financing other than that of it's subscriptions this would not be an issue. It is clear that advertisers would rather have less controversy in the outlets with which they spend their cash. This statement is only tempered slightly by the fact as global warming is becoming more and more evident to most clearheaded folks, news rooms are shifting to more "current" stories. This article seems to skip over the issue of whether the whole global warming argument is about "whether" or "why" is the more dominant discussion now. Corporate entities who subscribe to the opinion that Global Warming exists and that Mother Nature is to blame have no problem with newsrooms bringing up GW as an issue as long as no human activity is mentioned as a cause.
#1 Posted by I B Forum, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 08:17 AM
Only you pandering politicians and neocon-like fear mongers and lazy copy and paste news editors still cling to this 28 year old “maybe"/"could be"/"might be" climate blame crisis.
*Science DOES NOT agree climate change is a crisis, they agree it “MIGHT” be a crisis and it’s been 28 years.
*Find us one single IPCC warning that says a crisis is “imminent” or “eventual” or “unavoidable”.
*Science can say a comet hit is real but they can’t say their own comet hit of an emergency is as real as a comet hit.
*What has to happen now for science to end this costly debate to save the planet and simply say a crisis is certain, not just another unsustainable 28 years of “maybe” crisis actually happening?
When it comes to the ultimate emergency science must be about certainty not “could be” and if “maybe” is good enough to condemn your own children with CO2 death threats……………………………did Bush condemn billions to the greenhouse gas ovens of an exaggerated crisis?
And get up to date at least:
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.
*Science has never agreed it WILL be a crisis, only could be a crisis and it’s been almost three decades.
*Not one single IPCC warning has ever said any crisis WILL happen, only 28 years of “maybe” a crisis. Prove me wrong.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
*Obama had not mentioned the crisis in two State of the Unions addresses.
#2 Posted by mememine69, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 08:48 AM
Dana Nutty-celli is not any kind of scientist, let alone a "climate scientist".
Of course, if that was meant as an insult, I concur.
#3 Posted by Thinking Heretic, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 09:25 AM
In 1988 James Hansen based his dire warnings of global warming on only 10 years of warming. It is interesting that 10 years of warming was enough to mobilize an entire political movement based on climate Armageddon but 15 years of pause in warming is to be dismissed as flat Earth denial.
Roger Pielke Jr. provided science based Senate testimony including data from the IPCC that damage from hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, etc. has not increased. He put all data, references and sources on line and asked for rebuttals on twitter. It has been 3 days with no rebuttals and yet the press has falsely claimed and continues to claim that storm damage is worsening with climate change. Certainly Reuters can include this information in future articles so that at least someone other than Andy Revkin can correct the misinformation that has been reported by the press for years on loss damage. Any article that claims that damage loss will cost more than adaptation or even doing nothing, is not basing that claim on scientific data.
Another example of terrible press coverage of climate is the latest "Methane Bomb" scare which gets recycled more than aluminum cans with the latest installment offered by UK scientist Peter Wadhams in a Nature article. So bad was Wadhams article and research that Gavin Schmidt of GISS/NASA took the unprecedented action of posting a rebuttal of Wadhams "Methane Bomb" paper on the "Watts Up With That" skeptic blog. Yet the Gaurdian and many other clueless climate reporters ran with the Wadhams nonsense.
Finally Mike Hulme a professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA) (and other climate scientists) completely eviscerated Dana Nuccielli's recent 97% paper which clueless climate science reporters and bloggers continue to use in an apparent attempt to promote their consensus beliefs. Lastly I hhave not seen one climate science reporter, report on the potential conflict of interest that Dana Nuccitelli has in working for a company that profits from environmental contracts with the EPA as well as the green industry. What is the credibility of science reporters who have constantly pointed to skeptic conflict of interest but ignore non-skeptic conflict of interest?
Maybe Reuters can enlighten its readers on such poor reporting in the past?
#4 Posted by Windy, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 11:05 AM
Climate change and 3D have something in common. The dangers of each is less discussed than warranted by what each does to people and everything at large, such as Nature.
SmartPlanetDaily today, for example, had a 3D story that, as I rewrite it, says:
3D deadlier than Tobacco -- Cigarettes. Inhale deeply. Do it again. It's creating 3D diseases -- as high emitters of ultrafine particles -- that tobacco/cigarettes could never match.
And nobody has really yet begun to notice and care -- if they ever will. Unlike cigarettes, 3D doesn't stink and linger like tobacco. It just does it job: gets into your body and, over time, destroys it -- likely much more quickly than cigarettes ever did and in many more ways; cancer, heart disease, stuff like that.
Do you care that 3D uses acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) feedstock that puts out up to 200 billion particles per minute when in use? Nah. So far almost nobody does, especially not alleged health conscious private and government sectors medical scientists and definitely not free enterprise promoting politicians. Not even you.
Inhale deeply and and similar to what the the once-famous Marlboro Man did not say, happy death to you folks. Happy death.
#5 Posted by Rudy Haugeneder, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 12:36 PM
Oh yeah baby, trolls are on parade!
"Science DOES NOT agree climate change is a crisis, they agree it “MIGHT” be a crisis and it’s been 28 years."
Lie!
"Find us one single IPCC warning that says a crisis is “imminent” or “eventual” or “unavoidable”."
Imminent and eventual are the realities if nothing is done. Unavoidable? That's what you idiots are setting out to ensure.
"Science can say a comet hit is real but they can’t say their own comet hit of an emergency is as real as a comet hit."
??? Stupid is as stupid writes???
"What has to happen now for science to end this costly debate to save the planet and simply say a crisis is certain, not just another unsustainable 28 years of “maybe” crisis actually happening?"
Yeah, what will it take. Maybe another few periods of US suffering 80% drought? Maybe a few more hurricanes in New York and a few more tornados in upper Canada? Maybe the opening of the North West Passage and the elimination of polar sea ice will do the trick. No? How about the melting of Siberian permafrost and the 95% surface melt of the Greenland ice pack. Still nothing? How about all of this taking place during a historic Solar Minimum while the ocean has also descended into a La Nina phase? Not a dent?
How long will it take to end this costly debate and simply say a crisis is certain?
"*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians."
Occupy Wall street is heavily involved in the Keystone Pipeline protests and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has been operating in 9 states since 2008.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/05/495282/rggi-states-cut-co2-by-23-percent-in-first-three-years/
Holy horsemen of the Apocalypse, Batman!! Sorry, who's the scare monger again?
"*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier."
Jesus, look what this turns up:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Julian+Assange+is+of+course+a+climate+change+denier
You get around, mememine69. Your Ctrl-C Ctrl-V buttons must be worn right down.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 01:32 PM
"In 1988 James Hansen based his dire warnings of global warming on only 10 years of warming. "
No, he based it on models of how the earth would behave if patterns of Carbon Emissions continued given the known physical properties of carbon.
See here:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_heatwave_debate.php#comment-62989
And here:
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/what_drives_public_opinion_abo.php#comment-57453
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 01:46 PM
"Roger Pielke Jr. provided science based Senate testimony including data from the IPCC that damage from hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, etc. has not increased."
Roger Pielke is a crank, plain and simple.
"He put all data, references and sources on line and asked for rebuttals on twitter."
Yeah, it's right here:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15
It's one of those "are you going to believe your lying eyes?" papers.
"He put all data, references and sources on line and asked for rebuttals on twitter."
There was a rebuttal AT THE MEETING. You see, there's these guys who actually do crisis analysis because the frequency of crisis determines their livelihood. If they get the figures wrong, they are out of business, so they have been very careful about getting things like underwriting and its scientific basis right.
And he was at the meet.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f86b767e-7a71-48b4-8eef-7bd9ad1d3884
It's a bit of a different story when told by a guy who actually cares about the reality of what he's dealing with.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 02:05 PM
"It has been 3 days with no rebuttals!"
A) When dealing with a pile of Gish Gallop like what Pielke regularly serves up, it takes time.
b) And this ain't the first time he's been debunked on this subject:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/06/22/204047/roger-pielke-jr-denier-john-tierney-link-climate-change-extreme-weather/
c) hell, Roger Pielke Junior is "the most debunked person in the science blogosphere, possibly the entire Web. "
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/24/204853/delong-and-deltoid-roger-pielke-jr-train-wreck-rabett-meltdown-the-most-debunked-person-in-the-science-blogosphere/
That's who you've got. This is who you're tooting. If that's your best, have a nice day.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 02:15 PM
I was wondering what was going on over there - this explains it. I think I'll head over to Gannet in the future.
#10 Posted by Jack Wolf, CJR on Fri 26 Jul 2013 at 05:20 PM
Please cite the definitive "peer-reviewed" study that incontrovertibly links man with current climate change.
Keep in mind that the last world-wide consensus was that "Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs" which didn't work out too well.
#11 Posted by Neo, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 11:23 AM
None of the Climate Change models projected the current 17+ pause in Global Warming. Nor can anyone produce any data showing the mechanism of how the pause works. The models failed. The theory the models were built on has been falsified (see ClimateGate emails). The rude, unscientific behavior of alarmists advocates and scaremonger as reflected in this article should raise alarm bells and make anyone distrust their arguments.
When future historians write about the war against Climate Change they will conclude that it has never been anything but a genocidal fraud started by Sven Aarhenius, president of the Swedish Eugenics Society. Doubling CO2 will do nothing to the temperature since the CO2 band already totally absorbs radiation in the 10 micron band. The so-called “climate scientists” are nothing but paid stooges. Anyone still pushing this fraud should be viewed as criminals as millions are being swindled out of billions via "skyrocketing" energy costs the poor being hurt most.
#12 Posted by cj orach, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 12:12 PM
"Please cite the definitive "peer-reviewed" study that incontrovertibly links man with current climate change."
Which ones?
The ones where we've done the absolute measurements with satellites and detected drops in reflected radiation from the earth in the GHG bandwidths?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35
Or the ones where we've detected increased concentrations of CO2 in both the atmosphere and ocean?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm
"Keep in mind that the last world-wide consensus was that "Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs" which didn't work out too well."
Except that was when those people were running over experts in intelligence and "stove piping" false information to the executive branch and the public to support their policy agenda.
And there was no 'world-wide consensus'. There was Britain, the US, and oh I forget... Poland. The 'coalition of the willing' had not many members and, of those, many were bought off. The intelligence agencies in Europe warned the US and France & Canada were vilified for not signing on for the Iraq invasion.
The experts warned that the data didn't support the Al Qeda claims, the witnesses weren't credible, and the evidence wasn't there for the WMDs.
And none of that mattered.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 01:24 PM
Hey Neo!
You obviously not the one who control the Matrix. You can't even control the madness in your own brain: Comparing hard facts (do a Lit Search on peer reviewed global warming...assuming you have ANY idea of what a Lit Search is) to geopolitical probabilities show in all its inanity how illogical you can be.
#14 Posted by Francois T, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 01:27 PM
So yeah, the guys who built the 'consensus' that Iraq had WMD's shouldn't have been trusted, right?
How did the Mayberry Machiavellis treat climate scientists?
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/31/government_scientists_accuse_bush_administration_of
So yeah, that didn't work out too well.
"None of the Climate Change models projected the current 17+ pause in Global Warming."
Wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 01:31 PM
"Nor can anyone produce any data showing the mechanism of how the pause works."
Wrong.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
And it would be nice if reporters at Reuters and other publications would familiarize themselves with these facts.
The physical properties of Green House Gases aren't going away.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 01:37 PM
Thimbles,
Getting past bumper sticker mindset of "it's getting worse!"...
Sea Level Rise: Sea level has been declining and the rate from 2005-2012 is below the rage from 1954-2003. (NOAA).
Wildfires: Since 1950 have decreased globally by 15% (historical analysis).
Drought: Little change in the past 60 years (Nature magazine study). Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”
Floods: There is no strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing GMCO2. The results of this U.S. Geological Study were “very much at odds” with projected assessments by the IPCC. There is no increase in the U.S in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.
Antarctica now has the largest sea ice extent in 40 years. Antarctic sea ice is mostly located outside the Antarctic Circle and should be the first to melt due to global warming theory. Yet Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and expanding towards the equator contradicting all the models.
Unprecedented heat: the hottest shade temperature ever recorded on Earth was July 10, 1913 -- 100 years ago. (Alfred Wegner Institute)
Hurricanes: the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century—the last Category 3 or stronger storm was Wilma, more than seven years ago. NOAA data shows that hurricanes have been on the decline and the worst decade for category 3, 4 and 5 hurricanes in the U.S. was the 1940s.
Tornados: strong tornadoes have been on the decline in the U.S. since the 1950s. Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.
As to crisis analysis at the meeting, 'projections' are fine. Yet 75 models are wildly wrong: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png We 'realists' deal in OBSERVATIONS, not projections. Frank Nutter of the Reinsurance Institute is using these FALSE models for his claims of disaster. And the disaster isn't from climate, it's from people encroaching into unsafe land areas. (Don't build in a flood plan then complain when it floods.)
As to Pielke, you're quoting from Think Progress. There is no need to discuss further.
#17 Posted by Carlton Benson III, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 03:24 PM
If there's any chance we're making our planet uninhabitable, that's news. Don't gamble with all future lives of all species, even if there's a chance most won't die unnaturally.
#18 Posted by VC Bestor, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 06:52 PM
VC, our planet has undergone far greater change in the past than now, by many orders of magnitude. It's natural, despite Gore's pitch that we have had a long period of equilibrium and that somehow today's climate is 'perfect.' Every time there have been warming periods we've seen a greater abundance of species, which is why you see the enormous variety closer to the equator. And we're constantly discovering new species.
#19 Posted by Carlton Benson III, CJR on Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 10:52 PM
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is an odorless, tasteless, transparent gas that is absolutely necessary for life on earth. Plants must sort through 2500 molecules to find one that can be used to make food. Calling CO2 a pollutant is technologically incompetent.
Any credible change to the level of non-condensing greenhouse gases has never had and will never have significant effect on average global temperature
The influence of solar activity on earth’s average global temperature is accurately quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers.
AGW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
AGW never was. http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
None of the Climate Change models projected the current 17+ pause in Global Warming. Nor can anyone produce any data showing the mechanism of how the pause works. The models failed. The theory the models were built on has been falsified (see ClimateGate emails). The rude, unscientific behavior of alarmists advocates and censors who want to surpress free speech as reflected in this article should raise alarm bells and make anyone distrust their arguments.
When future historians write about the war against Climate Change they will conclude that it has never been anything but a genocidal fraud started by Sven Aarhenius, president of the Swedish Eugenics Society. Doubling CO2 will do nothing to the temperature since the CO2 band already totally absorbs radiation in the 10 micron band. The so-called “climate scientists” are nothing but paid stooges. Anyone still pushing this fraud should be viewed as criminals as millions are being swindled out of billions via "skyrocketing" energy costs the poor being hurt most.
#20 Posted by sam, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 01:44 AM
Carlton Benson Junior. I have words for you.
"Getting past bumper sticker mindset of "it's getting worse!"..."
Yes, the paper publishing peer reviewed science is all about the bumper stickers.
"Sea Level Rise: Sea level has been declining and the rate from 2005-2012 is below the rage from 1954-2003. (NOAA)."
THE RAGE!!
Seriously, you gonna cite and source that?
"Wildfires: Since 1950 have decreased globally by 15% (historical analysis)."
Seriously, you gonna cite and source that?
"Drought: Little change in the past 60 years (Nature magazine study). "
You know, the year after 81% of the US got hit with drought, you might wanna cite and source that.
"Floods: There is no strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing GMCO2. The results of this U.S. Geological Study were “very much at odds” with projected assessments by the IPCC."
Seriously, not a single cite and source?
"Antarctica now has the largest sea ice extent in 40 years. Antarctic sea ice is mostly located outside the Antarctic Circle and should be the first to melt due to global warming theory."
How's the land sea ice doing? How are the ice shelves doing? How's the Arctic sea ice doing? How's the citing and sourcing doing?
"Unprecedented heat: the hottest shade temperature ever recorded on Earth was July 10, 1913 -- 100 years ago. (Alfred Wegner Institute)"
Geez, I thought you didn't trust temperature records. (PS. Why is that one temperature reading in the shade supposed to matter? Explain.)
"Hurricanes: the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century"
You know, the year after New Fricken York got hit with a hurricane, you might wanna cite and source that.
"Tornados: strong tornadoes have been on the decline in the U.S. since the 1950s. Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined."
You know, the year aft... GEEZ this 'lying eyes' crap is tedious.
"As to crisis analysis at the meeting, 'projections' are fine. Yet 75 models are wildly wrong"
Dr. Roy Spencer? You gonna throw this chump at me?
Video Testimony 3 hrs 23 m in:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=cfe32378-96a4-81ed-9d0e-2618e6ddff46
"Do you believe theory of Creation has a much better scientific basis over the theory of Evolution?.."
"...I believe evolutionary theory is mostly religion... You cannot statistically contain all of the elements contained in a DNA molecule by chance..."
"Do you believe theory of Creation has a much better scientific basis over the theory of Evolution?.."
"...Yes."
And then you can listen to Whitehouse bust Roy over his selective choice of model data. (Senator Whitehouse was really kicking ass that day.)
"We 'realists' deal in OBSERVATIONS, not projections.”
Oh Fucking Really.
This from the guy who takes Roy Spencer of the George C. Marshall Institute seriously.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?pagewanted=2
"[C]ertain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise... Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning."
Let's
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 04:20 AM
"Let's.."
Argh, I got snipped. Fine. Let's look at the very first graph Pielke gives us in his testimony linked above.
On page 3 he has a graph titled "Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%)."
Naturally I got a little suspicious so I go to check his data.
The guy has two links to his data, one to a series of UN charts, none of which have records of Global GDP (so I guess he added all the GDP figures for every country from one of the 24 excel worksheets linked on that page? No, this is how you hide your sources folks. This is how you do shitty scholarship)
So I go to look at his Munich Re data.
It's a broken link, how unfortunate. (Again, this is how you hide your sources so no one can verify your work.)
So okay, I got a graph with fractions of a percent on one side and years on the bottom with a big red line through it and NO DATA.
Except, this graph is referencing 'Global Weather Related Losses as a Percentage of Global GDP'
I know where to find figures of global GDP.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=gdp_production_current_us&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&ifdim=region&tdim=true&tstart=649062000000&tend=1280214000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
http://search.worldbank.org/all?qterm=gdp
What do those figures tell me?
They tell me global gdp in 1990 starts out at 20.5 trillion.
By 2000 it's 32.35 trillion
By 2012 it's 71.67 trillion
This means the denominator of this guy's equation is increasing by a few trillion a year.
Which means, according to his fraction of percentage figures in 1990, weather related losses equaled 51 billion.
In 2000, they went down to 32 billion.
In 2012, they went up to 143 billion. Near triple 1990 figures! (not down by 25%, like he wanted you to think)
If you add up the decade between 1990 to 2000 you get 755.7 billion.
From 2000 to 2010? 1.0061 TRILLION. Weather related losses increased by 250 billion, they did not go down 25% like Pielke wanted you to think.
Now the question is, why would Pielke do that? Why would he purposefully arrange the data to make it as misleading as possible? This is his modus operendi, and he's one of the better skeptics.
(Watch the video testimony from 3:10 in where Whitehouse nails him down on what he thinks on the IPCC, extreme weather event causes, and the problems of the hydrological cycle caused by warming)
Other skeptics are worse when it comes to misleading data presentation, bad science, and general dishonesty; so if you're going to use these quacks in your Journalism, keep that in mind.
They're lying to you. Statistically speaking, if a skeptic is saying something, it's either a lie or it's stupid. Don't fall for it.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 05:50 AM
"None of the Climate Change models projected the current 17+ pause in Global Warming. Nor can anyone produce any data showing the mechanism of how the pause works. The models failed."
You either can't read what I posted above, or you just don't want to abandon your lie. "LA LA LA! CAN'T HEAR YOUR LA NINA DATA! WON'T LISTEN TO YOUR SOLAR MINIMUM TALK!"
It's a decade of flat Global Temperature Readings which have occurred in the warmest decade on record, while thermal energy is manifesting in other ways (like melting ice and drought - I know you folks don't like to count those), while emissions of other green house gasses have been cut (reducing the total GHG effect), while Solar intensity has GONE DOWN.
Don't read Pielke, he's an established jerk (he's too smart to be the idiot he pays in his papers and testimonies).
Read the real report:
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
And read the guy Pielke suggested we should read (to support his position, which he doesn't):
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/09/probable_cause
And watch Senator Whitehouse kicking ass in the presentation above. He knows the science better than the creationist goofs the republicans called in.
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 06:09 AM
Argh. Spam artists.
Hit us twice in here and couple of places around the web.
https://www.google.com/search?q=it+has+never+been+anything+but+a+genocidal+fraud+started+by+Sven+Aarhenius+Doubling+CO2+will+do+nothing+to+the+temperature+since+the+CO2+band+already+totally+absorbs+radiation+in+the+10+micron+band
Even in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/14/global-warming-appears-to-have-slowed-lately-thats-no-reason-to-celebrate/
(Good read, with the exception of the spammy comments)
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 06:24 AM
Jesus, 2:21 in, Senator Wicker is an idiot. Kindergarten, Louie Gomert level dialog.
I wish there was transcript, because it would pain my fingers to type the stupid out by hand.
Meanwhile:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/dont-panic-its-just-poles-melting-by.html
Journalists, listen to Jenny Francis 2:30 in, it's time to hug the damn monster:
http://americablog.com/2012/05/hugging-the-monster-climate-scientists-and-the-c-word-catastrophe.html
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 02:58 PM
It's time to follow Wen Stephenson's lead:
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/146647-convenient-excuse/
and pick up the ball the Boston Phoenix can no longer carry:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/03/19/climate-change-in-the-boston-phoenixs-final-issue/
This is not about profits, this is about survival. And most of the press is fumbling the ball.
The solutions are there, they're clear, and they will not involve large sacrifices from the people as a whole.
They will involve sacrifices from people who make their money off the momentum of old technology and unpriced environmental costs.
Those very rich people will fight, and who wouldn't prefer peace to fighting? But we can't avoid the conflict. Peace now is cremation later.
Now is the time to fight.
#26 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 03:10 PM
Thimbles....
You have too much time on your hands and sound a tad unhinged.
#27 Posted by Other_Andy, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 07:42 PM
"You have too much time on your hands"
If only, and not for long. Summer's ending.
"and sound a tad unhinged."
Maybe I do, but luckily I'm not the subject.
What are your thoughts on climate and the reluctance of the press to report on it?
Isn't it funny how the supposedly liberal press demonstrates an anti-liberal editorial bias on this subject? Isn't it funny how the bias of owners and editors actually skew coverage instead of the much maligned liberal beliefs of general journalists?
Let's talk about that, or Roger Pielke's attempt to deceive. I'm easy.
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 08:36 PM
Not much confidence in the 'liberal' press anymore.
That no journalist in the so called 'liberal press' questioned the obvious lie from Obama's latest speech when he said that “we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” is telling of the general bias and the bias by omission.
#29 Posted by Other_Andy, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 09:17 PM
"“we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” is telling of the general bias and the bias by omission."
This is wrong. As has been said many times, ambient temperature is not the only measure of heat energy within a system, and all other measurements are showing heat.
Not that you'd have known that from reuters. As mentioned in the article above, Reuters' Alister Doyle published a story "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown". What the article didn't mention was:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/16/1873531/reuters-contradicts-its-own-accurate-reporting-on-rapid-warming-of-oceans/
the same Reuters reporter reported on new studies of ocean warming just last week in an article headlined, “Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study“!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/07/us-climate-oceans-idUSBRE93608420130407
As Romm says:
"You may wonder how the same reporter could write both pieces a mere week apart. Is it amnesia — or something else?
Here’s one clue. The first piece says, “Reporting by Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent; Editing by Peter Graff” whereas the second says, “Reporting By Alister Doyle, extra reporting by Gerard Wynn in London; editing by Janet McBride.”
Climate Progress has said many times that it is probably editors — not reporters — who are the most to blame for flawed coverage and false balance."
#30 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 11:05 PM
Gerard Wynn, in particular:
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/media_errs_giving_balanced_coverage_to_jenny_mccarthys_discredited_views.php#comment-79128
may have had some editorial issues in recent past considering his shift in tone:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-04-29-climate-emissions-limit_N.htm
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Jul 2013 at 11:23 PM
“This is wrong. As has been said many times, ambient temperature is not the only measure of heat energy within a system, and all other measurements are showing heat. the same Reuters reporter reported on new studies of ocean warming just last week in an article headlined, “Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study“!!!”
You are kidding right?
Oh wait….
So all those graphs from GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadcrut4, For Hadsst2, UAH, and RSS, that people like Gore, Hansen etc. showed us and proved global warming for the last 30 years are now not really proof of global warming….
Right, got the memo….
And of course Obama, being the smartest president evah, knew all this.
So all that heat went into the oceans.
No wonder Trentberth couldn’t find the ‘hotspot’ that would prove CAGW. He should have listened to Obama and should have looked in the oceans all along.
"Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 meters (2,300 ft) of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65 percent of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans,"
Just wondering how all that heat got in the oceans as data shows that the oceans aren’t really warming at depths of 0-700 meters.
They are actually cooling (How bl**dy inconvenient!).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend
Oh wait, got it, the heat sneaked past Argo, without being noticed, below 2000 metres.
And surprise, we don’t measure ocean temperatures below 2000 metres but "Recent warming rates of the waters below 700 meters appear to be unprecedented".
Of course.
This time I’ll believe them.
#32 Posted by Other_Andy, CJR on Mon 29 Jul 2013 at 01:24 AM
"So all those graphs from GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadcrut4, For Hadsst2, UAH, and RSS, that people like Gore, Hansen etc. showed us and proved global warming for the last 30 years are now not really proof of global warming…."
Let's break it down into a simple closed system.
In a pot, I've got 1g of 70°C water. You can derive its thermal energy relative to 0°C using
E1 =1*4.1855*70 = 292.99J
I have another pot with 4 g of 35°C water. Its energy is derived by
E2 =4*4.1855*35 = 585.97J
E2 has a lower temperature, but double the thermal energy.
When you mix the two, you can derive the new temperature by
T3 = E1+E2/(W1+W2)*4.1855
28°C less than the original (70°C - 42°C) and triple the heat energy.
You measure heat energy from temperature, increases in volume, energy required to make physical transformations, energy required to affect physical objects (such as raising deep ocean temperature and changing precipitation patterns) etc..
If you are just measuring the air temperature, you are getting information about heat energy and trends, but it's not complete information.
This is why the Argo systems have been put in place, to capture the missing heat energy which we've detected by satellite, but couldn't account for on earth because of the ocean depths.
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/guidance/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/grl.50382/asset/grl50382.pdf?v=1&t=hjq0d5z3&s=8c06c0c4aa02aace10157eef8e463b89b5cad25f
"The magnitude of the warming trend is consistent with observational estimates, being equivalent to an average 0.470.03 W m–2 for the period 1975–2009. There is large decadal variability in the heat uptake, the latest decade being significantly higher (1.190.11 W m–2) than the preceding record. Globally this corresponds to 0.84 W m–2, consistent with earlier estimates [Trenberth et al., 2009]. In an observing system experiment where Argo is withdrawn, the ocean heating for the last decade is reduced (0.820.10 W m–2), but is still significantly higher than in previous decades. The estimation shows depths below 700 m becoming much more strongly involved in the heat uptake after 1998, and subsequently accounting for about 30% of the ocean warming."
And there's also the fact, which the skeptics blogs have been quoting of late to make their "maybe it's not happening" argument, that the sun has been unprecedentedly relaxed in this decade. We have an ocean and a solar negative forcing which should have cooled temperatures, but instead only leveled their rise.
Those negative forcings are temporary. When they turn positive again, we will have a serious problem.
In fact, based on the flooding, fire, drought, invasive species, ocean acidification etc problems we are seeing, we have serious problems now.
#33 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 29 Jul 2013 at 02:53 PM
"Just wondering how all that heat got in the oceans as data shows that the oceans aren’t really warming at depths of 0-700 meters.
They are actually cooling (How bl**dy inconvenient!)."
Neat little tool there you watt's up with that folks are playing with.
PS. I noticed you went with hadsst2 and not hadsst3. Interesting choice.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2003/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend
PPS. you get that the SST part stands for 'surface sea temperatures' right? So I'll just inform the folks at home watching.
PPPS. Using your tool you get a real sense of how muted solar activity has gotten since 1995.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/to:2013/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2000/to:2013/trend
We're seeing Dalton Minimum conditions and heat waves reactions. There is no explanation for this if you take the GHG warming out of the equation.
#34 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 29 Jul 2013 at 03:17 PM
For those who are curious HADSST3, there's a story on Real Climate about that process:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/revisiting-historical-ocean-surface-temperatures/
And, as a bonus, you get to see Pielke Junior acting like a jackass in the comments.
There's also an interesting story about the argo system, for those who are interested, about how the calibration between observation, the equipment used to make that observation, theory, and reenforcement from other observational methods work:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
"If there is a moral to this story, it’s that when it comes to understanding the climate system, it’s hard to imagine too much redundancy. Every scientist involved in these studies says the same thing: to understand and predict our climate and how it is going to change, we need it all.
We need multiple, independent, overlapping sets of observations of climate processes from space and from the Earth’s surface so that we can create long-term climate records—and have confidence that they are accurate. We need theories about how the parts of the Earth system are related to each other so that we can make sense of observations. And we need models to help us see into the future.
“Models are not perfect,” says Syd Levitus. “Data are not perfect. Theory isn’t perfect. We shouldn’t expect them to be. It’s the combination of models, data, and theory that lead to improvements in our science, in our understanding of phenomena.”"
#35 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 29 Jul 2013 at 03:26 PM
Thimbles, Thanks for doing the heavy lifting in refuting the deniers. I was surprised that I did not read CBIII, sam, or other_andy citing "I saw it on Fox".
#36 Posted by NorthLeft12, CJR on Tue 30 Jul 2013 at 09:38 AM
"Thanks for doing the heavy lifting in refuting the deniers."
Your welcome.
It's not a job I relish doing, but this issue is the most important issue we need to get right in the coming decade, and it is difficult to find anyone else doing it.
There are plenty of people on the other side.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy
Some of whom are funded by the fossil fuel pr system, some of whom are devoted to libertarian philosophies which have no answer to fixing the climate change problem in the time it needs to be fixed (which was about 20 years ago, I reckon).
http://www.alternet.org/bill-moyers-naomi-klein-how-climate-change-historic-opportunity-progressives?paging=off
But these guys really don't get the urgency that it needs to be fixed. As deniers have often pointed out, when climate change has been driven by orbital and solar factors - as it often is historically - CO2 levels track temperature with about an 800 year lag.
What they say is that "this means CO2 doesn't cause temperature change," which it doesn't in the case of climate changes caused by orbital and solar factors.
But what it does mean is that our planet's carbon sinks: the forests, oceans, and permafrost, are temperature sensitive. And what that means is that when temperature goes up a little, the release of CO2 from those carbon sinks can intensify that temperature change, driving more CO2 into the atmosphere.
We know this, we all admit that CO2 tracks temperature with an 800 year lag.
We also know that we have an ocean which is both absorbing large amounts of Carbon - causing acidification, and warming up. It can't do both indefinitely. Something will break and soon, unless something is done and very soon.
#37 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 30 Jul 2013 at 02:26 PM
And 'somethings' can be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrag_FkFaXk
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/new-york-energy-031213.html
this is the crazy part. We are talking about the impacts of change when we should be talking about the impacts of industrial evolution. (2 link limit, gotta break up the post)
#38 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 30 Jul 2013 at 02:31 PM
We've known about the path we should evolve since at least 2005:
http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html
But there are people who fear change and its agents. Get that? Climate and environmental devastation - not a worry, not real, doubt any science that is screaming otherwise.
Changing the engines we drive, the materials we use in manufacture, the technologies we use to produce and store energy? COMMUNISM.
And this has been how we've dithered through the decades, wasting time until there is no time for evolution, we need a revolution.
And yet here we are, near a decade later, doing about the same talk and facing the same institutional hurdles and hesitation
http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy.html
Again, this is not a job I relish doing, but if it's left to Reuters, Pielke, and the various Koch outfits nothing will ever get done.
And we are not prepared to handle the planet on our 'do nothing' course.
#39 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 30 Jul 2013 at 02:48 PM
You wrote:
"It’s worth noting that most newsrooms around the country have reduced coverage of climate change-related issues since 2010. (...) The New York Times cut its global warming article count by 15 percent, and the Guardian slashed coverage by 21 percent that same year. (Reuters, too, dropped its climate coverage by 27 percent in 2011, before Ingrassia came aboard.)
so: whats wrong with Reuters? It follows the trend!!!!
#40 Posted by jorge c., CJR on Tue 30 Jul 2013 at 06:35 PM