It never ceases to amaze me how the gullible mainstream media mavens are so doggedly dutiful in their pro-alarmist advocacy efforts.
Margot O’Neill is an Australian journalist who has spent the last year “studying climate change reporting”. In a recent article she asks, “where did all the climate change stories go”:
WHATEVER HAPPENED to climate change? This time last year climate change was a hot topic regularly appearing in news bulletins and on front pages. Phrases such as “the future of humanity could be at stake” were quoted, celebrities marshalled and 4,000 journalists prepared to descend on the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. Apparently humanity’s future is now secure… or so it might seem given the paucity of journalism devoted to the issue in the mainstream media.
Where did all the climate change stories go? “The [programmers] are against it because it loses ratings,” says a senior BBC journalist. “The wave [of public interest] has gone. There is climate change fatigue. That is why I am not [reporting] it now.”
O’Neill’s take on Climategate is, well, interesting:
The biggest hurdle mentioned by most journalists was the so-called ‘Climategate’, the controversy surrounding the publication of hundreds of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK between influential climate scientists. It was a “defining moment in all our careers,” according to an environment editor.
Given the underlying science has been exonerated in successive inquiries, what is it that the journalists believe they were guilty of? Firstly, they missed a cracking story that was instead first pursued by the blogosphere and which proved to be, unlike many other climate change stories, a hit with the public. After struggling to find stories the public wanted to read, a tabloid journalist observed “Climategate … got a strong response; it made climate change more topical.”
Many journalists say the UEA email hacking, combined with the discovery of an error regarding the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also proved they had failed to cast a critical enough eye on climate science and that they had been far too dismissive of sceptics. [emphasis added-hro]
Notwithstanding the fact that after almost a year the Norwich police have supposedly yet to complete their investigation into the release of the emails, O’Neill, the “advocate” doggedly subscribes to the “hacked” meme. It’s astounding that she fails to recognize that that which the journalists are “guilty of” is contained in the assertion that precedes her question: she has bought into the “underlying science has been exonerated” meme.
If she were a true journalist, rather than an advocate, O’Neill would have discovered – as have all who have actually read the reports of the various inquiries – that (in addition to many other shortcomings) none of the inquiries even examined “the underlying science”, as Ross McKitrick has confirmed in his response.
Meanwhile, in a state of willful oblivion … It seems that the UN, undaunted by its failure to practice what it preaches in matters environmental or by the failure of cap and trade (and the imminent demise of the “green enconomy” solar panel and wind turbine “solutions”), has now glommed onto yet another (European Union generated) “scheme”: taxation of maritime and air travel … and financial transactions.
A top UN panel has called for increased taxes on carbon emissions and air and sea transport to raise 100 billion dollars a year to combat climate change.
The group led by the prime ministers of Norway and Ethiopia also proposed a tax on international financial transactions for a fund to help poorer nations counter the impact of the warming planet.
The radical proposals will be sent to all governments and get a first international airing at the next UN climate conference in Cancun, Mexico starting at the end of the month.
The report “contains financing options that are both financially feasible and politically viable,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. “This is not about charity. It is about doing the right thing for those who are suffering most from a crisis that they did least to cause.”
Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of Norway and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia said there had to be greater use of carbon emission taxes as a deterrent to produce the gases blamed for global warming and to raise revenue.
They proposed that the price of carbon emissions of between 20 and 25 dollars a tonne by 2020, when the United Nations hopes to have 100 billion dollars a year available for the fund for developing nations.
[…] [emphasis added -hro]