Rogers writes "I looked at their dataset and — as we might expect — RCP8.5 features prominently in many of the papers receiving the most media attention in 2020".
Can Roger or someone else can provide specific examples of the mainstream climate press basing their apocalyptic articles specifically on RCP8.5? I suspect they do, but when I try to explain to people why they should be skeptical about such climate predictions, it would be helpful if I could point out that these articles are based on scenarios that even the IPCC scientists find highly unlikely.
Recently our local Toronto-area development newsletter Novae Res Urbis issued a correction to an earlier story that had led off saying southern Ontario rain intensities were increasing. The editor was quite supportive when I raised the issue of data in our Engineering Climate Datasets showing nothing of the sort. Its nice when folks are open minded and listen and make correction. These are the data trends I cited by the way: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2023/05/southern-ontario-extreme-rainfall.html ... the original article author had offered nothing to back up the original statement that intensities were increasing which is typical (i.e., just cut and paste the narrative).
Another successful avenue I have found for corrections is working with Canada's advertising standards agency. While you can say whatever opinion you want in a newspaper, advertising must meet a higher standard to not mislead consumers. Again, after sharing information on actual extreme rain trends many large insurance companies have updated earlier inaccurate statements in their advertising. This effort took years. The result? Insurance companies no longer report that an arbitrary 1 standard deviation shift in a normal bell curve is the actual frequency shift data for extreme rainfall in Canada. Yes, for years leading news organizations across the country, and even the chief economist of a large bank, repeated that a 40 year storm had already become a 6 year storm in Canada - but this was all made up, a 1 std dev shift in bell curve shift!!!, and no data was never used or checked. The details on this "weather story" are here: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/07/storm-intensity-not-increasing-old.html
It takes a lot of effort and patience to share data and to try and not be a 'pointed headed' engineer / scientist when communicating and helping journalists. Often one is just dismissed as wearing a tin foil hat though :) To get ahead of stories, instead of just following up, U of T's Dr. Bryan Karney and I prepared a report for CBC ombudsmen with data sources to share with editors/journalists and consider to improve the accuracy or balance in reporting. I hope this is helping.
As Steve Martin said, some people have a way with words and others ... ummm...'not have way'. Thanks Roger to you and your way with words, making these topics more digestible. Its a model for us all to follow and help the journalists out there up their game :)
If you want to obtain funding or keep your job you have to toe the line. Roger hits the nail on the head, only the "good" reports and articles are going to get published. Sad but true!
I've been a reporter covering climate since before Hansen's Senate bombshell. I have always tried to play straight. The quality of reporting has worsened over the years and current reporting has no nuance or skepticism. It's cheerleading. I suspect most of the reporters and editors have no idea about RCP8.5 or that there is any uncertainty in the science.
So, given that WG1 clearly defines that there is no climate emergency or existential threat, how do these media outlets plan to defend their own personal ‘Exxon Knew’ moment when, for example, a group of tax payers starts a class action citing grossly wasted tax dollars? Surely responsible journalism requires that they can defend the stance they have taken by illustrating the balance of evidence?
Journalism like this only confirms the belief of those who deny there is anything to worry about regarding climate change. To be honest, I can't blame them. They may not be scientists or even well versed on the topic. But they can smell bullshit when they see it. I think a natural reaction to bad faith actors is to take a completely opposite point of view.
You don't comment on the role that the Arabella network of left-leaning dark money plays in the shift in media bias, but I wish you would. It appears that Arabella has now reached or outstripped the dark money vehicles of the right.
I'm pretty sure that when you write that you do not share the authors' views (that climate "journalists" have become climate ADVOCATES) it's a typo, because you go on to explain how right they are.
And BTW, I do wish that you had the luxury of bouncing your newsletters off a good editor or proofreader pre-pub,
Josef Goebbels (arguably the father of modern media-based propaganda) is sadly smiling at the state of journalism on this subject. A recent example: RJP at the recent senate hearings making the same plea for ethical scientific work and reporting and the misuse of the extreeme scenarios to guide policy.
How did the UK Guardian report his words: "RJP supported the notion of a climate crisis...."(I parphrase)".
It will take many years yet of human ability to master the "imminent tipping points" and adapt, before the general public understand they have been "had" or nakedly manipulated.
What I've noticed is that land change and land use are never mentioned as climate drivers, even though scientists like your father have been pointing out for years just how important land use is to the climates we live in and experience. It is a consistent omission with profound consequences.
Roger, thanks for this article, as this is only confirming to the 20% of the population who are sceptics, what is a root cause of biased reporting, which includes advocacy, lack of facts and all advocate, opinion.
This is not only true in the field of alarmist climate change, but also covers pretty well all "NEWS" covered by MSM newspapers and main stream broadcasting outlets that nowadays has an to has an agenda, has to be activist driven, has to follow a propaganda narrative, and has to follow the dictum of "if it bleeds its leads."
It is so good to have outlets like Substack which facilitates the airing of the 20% skeptical views, which until recently were unable to see the light of day.
It goes without saying that this expose by the likes of yourself, is critical to the fight against the The Industrial Censorship Complex which is well under weigh from those sources that would have us all believe that for the human race to reach Utopia, demands a global government, which will eliminate the ills that plague all societies, that all poverty can be eliminated, and the world will will consist only of altruistic societies, can live in harmony and we can all sit around the camp fire humming kumbaya.
No surprises here to quote Dylan, “you don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows”.
I have a friend in England that told me to stop sending your blog. He just refuses to believe any other scenario then the one that is sensationalized in the media.
I am sick and tired of hearing how extreme weather events have increased significantly over the last few decades. I hear this all the time...and I recently listened to a congressional hearing on the energy transition where several representatives of both parties were saying extreme weather events have increased sharply. Is anyone informed anymore? I feel like the climate agenda is essentially cultural totalitarianism.
Problem is, publications like The Economist and New York Times won't even publish comments pointing to errors in their climate reporting. Joe Biden says climate change is real, "You can see it with your own eyes, feel it in your bones," and nobody responds - BS!
Rogers writes "I looked at their dataset and — as we might expect — RCP8.5 features prominently in many of the papers receiving the most media attention in 2020".
Can Roger or someone else can provide specific examples of the mainstream climate press basing their apocalyptic articles specifically on RCP8.5? I suspect they do, but when I try to explain to people why they should be skeptical about such climate predictions, it would be helpful if I could point out that these articles are based on scenarios that even the IPCC scientists find highly unlikely.
http://m4.emails.telegraph.co.uk/nl/jsp/m.jsp?c=%40nd81CmNevoUsKUCqx9zLwGXsavHR8lVGqHu6EjwNNkoGgXd%2BbCk9KvfTcRm7VDcuIET1ne88hYr1N8FOJRvRZA%3D%3D&WT.mc_id=e_DM168758&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_EIn_New&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_EIn_New20230627&utm_campaign=DM168758
Perhaps a better standard of climate journalism from an economic perspective noting its political effects. It requires subscription for full access.
Fortunately I've been successful at getting some Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stories corrected on the topic of extreme rainfall trends and damages (https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2019/09/assessing-damage-cbc-ombudsman-finds.html, https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2020/11/radio-canada-ombudsman-finds-standards.html, https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2019/01/). Bravo to the CBC ombudsmen for helping to improve accuracy in journalism (and adhere to their own policies). Most recently the offending article was deleted as the ombudsman suggested it was so bad it was not salvageable (see description/ruling). Sadly, some journalists seem to start with a conclusion and work back to fill in the story - facts be damned!
Recently our local Toronto-area development newsletter Novae Res Urbis issued a correction to an earlier story that had led off saying southern Ontario rain intensities were increasing. The editor was quite supportive when I raised the issue of data in our Engineering Climate Datasets showing nothing of the sort. Its nice when folks are open minded and listen and make correction. These are the data trends I cited by the way: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2023/05/southern-ontario-extreme-rainfall.html ... the original article author had offered nothing to back up the original statement that intensities were increasing which is typical (i.e., just cut and paste the narrative).
Another successful avenue I have found for corrections is working with Canada's advertising standards agency. While you can say whatever opinion you want in a newspaper, advertising must meet a higher standard to not mislead consumers. Again, after sharing information on actual extreme rain trends many large insurance companies have updated earlier inaccurate statements in their advertising. This effort took years. The result? Insurance companies no longer report that an arbitrary 1 standard deviation shift in a normal bell curve is the actual frequency shift data for extreme rainfall in Canada. Yes, for years leading news organizations across the country, and even the chief economist of a large bank, repeated that a 40 year storm had already become a 6 year storm in Canada - but this was all made up, a 1 std dev shift in bell curve shift!!!, and no data was never used or checked. The details on this "weather story" are here: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/07/storm-intensity-not-increasing-old.html
It takes a lot of effort and patience to share data and to try and not be a 'pointed headed' engineer / scientist when communicating and helping journalists. Often one is just dismissed as wearing a tin foil hat though :) To get ahead of stories, instead of just following up, U of T's Dr. Bryan Karney and I prepared a report for CBC ombudsmen with data sources to share with editors/journalists and consider to improve the accuracy or balance in reporting. I hope this is helping.
As Steve Martin said, some people have a way with words and others ... ummm...'not have way'. Thanks Roger to you and your way with words, making these topics more digestible. Its a model for us all to follow and help the journalists out there up their game :)
If you want to obtain funding or keep your job you have to toe the line. Roger hits the nail on the head, only the "good" reports and articles are going to get published. Sad but true!
I've been a reporter covering climate since before Hansen's Senate bombshell. I have always tried to play straight. The quality of reporting has worsened over the years and current reporting has no nuance or skepticism. It's cheerleading. I suspect most of the reporters and editors have no idea about RCP8.5 or that there is any uncertainty in the science.
So, given that WG1 clearly defines that there is no climate emergency or existential threat, how do these media outlets plan to defend their own personal ‘Exxon Knew’ moment when, for example, a group of tax payers starts a class action citing grossly wasted tax dollars? Surely responsible journalism requires that they can defend the stance they have taken by illustrating the balance of evidence?
Journalism like this only confirms the belief of those who deny there is anything to worry about regarding climate change. To be honest, I can't blame them. They may not be scientists or even well versed on the topic. But they can smell bullshit when they see it. I think a natural reaction to bad faith actors is to take a completely opposite point of view.
Green journalism is the new yellow journalism.
You don't comment on the role that the Arabella network of left-leaning dark money plays in the shift in media bias, but I wish you would. It appears that Arabella has now reached or outstripped the dark money vehicles of the right.
I'm pretty sure that when you write that you do not share the authors' views (that climate "journalists" have become climate ADVOCATES) it's a typo, because you go on to explain how right they are.
And BTW, I do wish that you had the luxury of bouncing your newsletters off a good editor or proofreader pre-pub,
Josef Goebbels (arguably the father of modern media-based propaganda) is sadly smiling at the state of journalism on this subject. A recent example: RJP at the recent senate hearings making the same plea for ethical scientific work and reporting and the misuse of the extreeme scenarios to guide policy.
How did the UK Guardian report his words: "RJP supported the notion of a climate crisis...."(I parphrase)".
It will take many years yet of human ability to master the "imminent tipping points" and adapt, before the general public understand they have been "had" or nakedly manipulated.
What I've noticed is that land change and land use are never mentioned as climate drivers, even though scientists like your father have been pointing out for years just how important land use is to the climates we live in and experience. It is a consistent omission with profound consequences.
Roger, thanks for this article, as this is only confirming to the 20% of the population who are sceptics, what is a root cause of biased reporting, which includes advocacy, lack of facts and all advocate, opinion.
This is not only true in the field of alarmist climate change, but also covers pretty well all "NEWS" covered by MSM newspapers and main stream broadcasting outlets that nowadays has an to has an agenda, has to be activist driven, has to follow a propaganda narrative, and has to follow the dictum of "if it bleeds its leads."
It is so good to have outlets like Substack which facilitates the airing of the 20% skeptical views, which until recently were unable to see the light of day.
It goes without saying that this expose by the likes of yourself, is critical to the fight against the The Industrial Censorship Complex which is well under weigh from those sources that would have us all believe that for the human race to reach Utopia, demands a global government, which will eliminate the ills that plague all societies, that all poverty can be eliminated, and the world will will consist only of altruistic societies, can live in harmony and we can all sit around the camp fire humming kumbaya.
No surprises here to quote Dylan, “you don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows”.
I have a friend in England that told me to stop sending your blog. He just refuses to believe any other scenario then the one that is sensationalized in the media.
I am sick and tired of hearing how extreme weather events have increased significantly over the last few decades. I hear this all the time...and I recently listened to a congressional hearing on the energy transition where several representatives of both parties were saying extreme weather events have increased sharply. Is anyone informed anymore? I feel like the climate agenda is essentially cultural totalitarianism.
Problem is, publications like The Economist and New York Times won't even publish comments pointing to errors in their climate reporting. Joe Biden says climate change is real, "You can see it with your own eyes, feel it in your bones," and nobody responds - BS!