Bullshitting the public

The Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) shows just how persistently the media favors climate alarmism and how little interest they have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy. It is standard fare to sew doubt about the suspect’s credibility, but The Washington Post way of comparing the NIPCC report to the IPCC’s ditto of last year was most unfavorable.

After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then added: “While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.”

Hundreds of scientists may in some way have contributed to the IPCC’s report, but just 62 wrote the chapter said to “prove” that man is behind global warming. And just 52 people, many of them non-scientists, wrote the IPCC’s Summary.

The thing is that no matter what the IPCC and its defenders claim, The Washington Post and other outlets should report objectively. Meanwhile, the motives and sources of all skeptics are instantly suspected and ridiculed.

Here’s an example. Inspired by all the fantastic presentations given at the New York conference last week, I wrote a debate article and sent it to all the major daily papers in Sweden (which is where I live). While most of them ignored me, I got a polite answer from the most prestigious one (Svenska Dagbladet). The editor made it clear that there isn’t any space available and wished me luck somewhere else.

Of course, I recognized this as pure bullshit. There is always space available for breaking news. So I replied, equally politely.

It’s unfortunate that you turn down an article that questions today’s biggest issue on the environmental agenda. Unfortunately, I am well aware of your true motives. It’s not about lack of space, it is about good old censorship.

The answer came swiftly. And this time it was honest.

Dear Maggie,
You are fully entitled to your own opinions, even if they are contrary to most of the serious scientists in the world.

To think that humans do not affect the climate is extreme and I won’t publish such a view in this paper. It is simply not credible.

All the best,
Sune Olofson
Svenska Dagbladet

In other words, I have been labeled an extremist. But let me ask you, which is more extreme?

To think that the global warming is moderate and its consequences positive for humans as well as animal and plant life? That it is part of the Earth’s natural climate changes? That human activity does not have a significant effect on the climate and there is nothing to worry about?

Or is it perhaps more extreme to think that we are witnessing the greatest catastrophe ever, one that will claim millions of lives and forever change the face of the planet? That we must radically reduce our emissions through all kinds of imperative measures, thus risking stagnation of world economy? That we should use agricultural land for production of expensive and inefficient biofuels, which results in runaway prices on basic foodstuffs and aggravated hunger and starvation?

You be the judge.