Daily Mail
Don Surber
Don Surber
The UN’s global warming unit, IPCC, is so discredited that “it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices” said Ken Caldeira in announcing that he is resigning as one of its leading authors on the next IPCC report.
The previous one won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
Outside of a few skeptical bloggers, you will not see this story anywhere else.
If anyone doubts there is a bias in the media for the bright and shiny object called Global Warming (aka Climate Change, Climate Disruption and Global Cooling) which of these headline is not like the others:
Now I will grant you that the first two headlines are by skeptics, Anthony Watts and Tom Nelson, respectively. But the third one is by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. Shouldn’t journalists be skeptical? Isn’t Doubting Thomas the reporter’s role model?
Surely I am skeptical of what governments and government-paid PhD’s say. And I do not pretend to practice journalism here.
It took Andrew Revkin 6 paragraphs to get to Ken Caldeira, who sent him an e-mail:
Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change. It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
But can anybody point to any important positive outcomes resulting from the IPCC AR4 process? [AR4 is shorthand for the panel's fourth assessment, which was published in 2007.] Is there reason to expect a greater positive impact from the IPCC AR5 process? [This is the forthcoming fifth assessment of climate science and policies, coming in 2013 and 2014]
Posts
