The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

They’ll Say Anything

February 24th, 2009 by Mike N · 4 Comments · Environmentalism

The Feb 24th Detroit News caries an Associated Press article by Randolph E. Schmid titled “Panel: Climate threat worse than thought”. It says that:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the risk of increased severe weather would rise with a global average temperature increase of between 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit and 3.6 degrees above 1990 levels. The National Climatic Data Center reports that global temperatures have risen 0.22 degree since 1990.”

This 2 tenths of a degree since 1990 is part of a 7 tenths of one degree Celsius rise since 1900. Nothing to get excited about since climate always warms during an interglacial. But this article is pure scare mongering.

“Indeed, “it is now more likely than not that human activity has contributed to observed increases in heat waves, intense precipitation events and the intensity of tropical cyclones,” concluded the researchers led by Joel B. Smith of Stratus Consulting Inc. in Boulder, Colo.”


“The new report, in this week’s online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, comes just a week after Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s.

Carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s, Field said.”

This should not be alarming to scientists who understand that the CO2 to heat rise relationship is logarithmic, i.e. the more CO2 in the atmosphere the less heat it traps. With words like ‘suggest’ and ‘likely’ this article is just speculation and evidence that alarmists and their true believers in the press will say anything to get citizens to give up their money, property and freedom. has a new blog called The Green Hell Blog. Today’s (Feb. 24th) post asks readers to defend George Will’s right to criticize the AGW (man made global warming) dogma.

“Here’s the story. On Feb. 15, the Washington Post published Will’s column “Dark Green Doomsayers.”

Not surprisingly, green groups (Center for American Progress Action Fund, Media Matters and Friends of the Earth) have gone ballistic). They’re mounting an e-mail campaign to the Post’s ombudsman alleging that,

Will claimed that “according the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.” This is false. In fact, the WMO recently stated that “global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing.”
Will misleadingly conflated Arctic and global sea ice levels to leave readers with the false impression that global warming isn’t real. After Will’s column was published, the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center took issue with his use of their sea ice data, writing: “It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.”
Will repeats science deniers’ discredited assertion that a scientific consensus about a global “cooling” crisis existed in the 1970s.”

But the fact is, Will wasn’t wrong as the post goes on to demonstrate. Greeny outfits like those mentioned above will say anything to discredit their critics. They have no respect for ideas because they don’t recognize anyone’s right to dissent. That is why they call their critics ‘deniers’ instead of critics. In their mind there are only believers (themselves) and non-believers, the deniers. There is no such thing as a legitimate critic. This is the mindset of those who deal in beliefs instead of knowledge.

But it isn’t always the eco-statists who make wild accusations. The liberal press aids and abets this process. Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame is upset, justifiably so, at the lying, liberal western press.

“The Czech National Bank just reacted to some incredibly idiotic articles written in some of the Western media, including the Financial Times and the Economist.”


“With the new flat tax and its low rate,[Are you listening Mr. Obama?–MN] the country has become a tax paradise, too. By the way, the Czech economy grew in every quarter so far, including Q4 of 2008: we have seen no recession so far and be sure that there are not too many countries that can boast the same record.

But some of the “numerical” misinformation is really stunning. In Scare warns of potential quake ahead in the Financial Times, a Stefan Wagstyl writes that Czech banks owe USD 192 billion to foreign banks.

In reality, the realistic figure is only USD 38 billion: a factor-of-five error! And this modest figure of 38 billion actually includes the Czech agents’ debt to the banks mostly in CZK, so only a portion of this smaller figure is actually foreign debt.”

Read the whole thing. Journalists can be true believers too. Or they can be just plain sloppy. Either way, they are capable of saying anything.

4 Comments so far ↓

  • seine

    You neglected to mention that Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech republic, is the one western leader that seems to have a commitment to reason, at least as far as global warming is concerned. Could that attitude possibly have affected his economic thinking as well?
    As the Czech republic is leading the E.U. for this six month stint, might we see some fiscal sanity from them as well?

  • Mike N

    Yes I neglected to mention Czech president Klaus. I’m a fan of his at least on the issue of climate change. He’s also doing prety good with the Czech economy. We need someone of his intellegence here. Sadly, most of the people in our government are brain dead little children intellectually. Most of the House and Senate are this way.

  • Jim May

    According to LGF, Will did indeed make quite a few errors in his article, here and here..

    This is another case of where a half-measure can be worse than none; sloppy work enables the enemy to use its errors to discredit the source — and by association, whatever facts inconvenient to their cause that happen to be in the same article.

  • Mike N

    You’re right in that Will should have tried harder to fact check his data. But I have to reject the implied idea that critics of the AGW mantra must always be 100% accurate when the advocates of same don’t have to be accurate at all. George Will is an influencial columnist and if his article influences some people to question the establishment orthodoxy then good for him. Most people today are influenced by authority figures rather than facts. That’s why the alarmists are currently carrying the day. They are all ‘authorities’ who are bought and paid for by government.

    The link you provided at LGF cited data from NSIDC and AARC that supposedly refutes Will’s claims. But a post at IceCap looks at the reuters story and links to this site which explains that:

    “As with the NASA Russian temperature debacle last year and the forced recalculation of US surface temperatures for the last century in 2007, the latest problem was discovered after NSIDC received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice free open ocean. A statement on the NSIDC web site, published February 18, 2009, explains the current faux pas this way:

    As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data.”

    Today’s 2/26/09 Detroit News has an AP article titled “Scientists find Antarctic glaciers are melting faster” in which there was no mention of the fact that it is summer now there and sometimes ice melts during that time. I’m sure that even if Will was right on with his facts he still would have been attacked as being wrong is some way. Besides, if one of Will’s data was wrong, and that’s what it looks like, who’s fault was that? It is not the job of reporters to correct bad data for scientists.