Inside the Corporate Media Pressure Machine

While this is not strictly relevant to climate (nor a new story), it is a very compelling and interesting illustration of why corporate media in general, and Fox in particular, can not be trusted with news stories where science intersects with an industry’s profitability.

As mentioned in the video, this is the incident which prompted Fox News to argue in court that they have no obligation to tell the truth, an argument they won.  Also, keep in mind the small percentage of people who would actually choose to lose their jobs and careers rather than just go along and how many buried and important stories that represents.

69 thoughts on “Inside the Corporate Media Pressure Machine

  1. You cant be serious, right? How can someone attack climate change skeptics as anti science and then turn around and ignore scientific safety assessments of rBST? (or, as others do, GMO’s, vaccines, etc). It seems that there are a lot of hypocrites on the left that hide behind the umbrella of science when it supports their ideology but discard in and invent conspiracies when it doesn’t.

    Like

  2. It’s easy Todd.

    The reason we attack climate change deniers (note the correct word is deniers, not sceptics, because they are not sceptics at all) as anti-science is because they are anti-science.

    It is the same reason as we attack the fools who hold anti-vaccine beliefs (note that I said beliefs – it is not evidence based).

    Conspiracy theories? Yes, there are a lot of them out there aren’t there?. The most deluded are those who think there is some form of conspiracy among scientists to hide the truth about climate change for grant money, or to impose a socialist world government. You can easily tell those people though. They are the ones wearing the tin foil hats and attending Chris Monkeytown conferences.

    Like

  3. Todd, the only conspiracy is that conducted by GMO producers and their corporate shills. Some of these shills are the every same people who are well known AGW deniers and are in the pockets of these large multinational corporations, whether they be fossil fuel companies or the new breed of agricultural company.

    Where is the peer reviewed science to show that they are safe? Where are the peer reviewed papers showing that there will be no problems with their products even though many of them were predicted?

    Science has recently shown that their claims about how accurate and precise and that they knew exactly what they are transferring when they introduce new genes is complete bollocks.

    Read up on the recent findings that the European regulators (EFSA) have now found that there is a large viral gene fragment which has been inadvertently introduced into the majority of approved GM crops. The Gene VI product is known to cause a number of potential problems in other organisms so how can these companies say conclusively that there will be no problems with their products. Are they lying or just incompetent?

    http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

    There are of course many other problems associated with GM crops, most of which were predicted by scientists who were either ignored or vilified.

    Like

  4. Since “climate alarmism contrarians” don’t exist, only science deniers like you, freddy, that WOULD be a silly conspiracy theory.

    However, Pat Michaels gets paid 2500 a day by the fossil fuel industry. Just as an example.

    Gleick’s investigation found that the Heartland Institute’s climate denial was paid for by Oil industry money, as another.

    Like

  5. Yes, Freddy that is a ‘silly conspiracy theory’ because it is actually a reality backed by facts. Many ‘contrarians’ are employed to manage the perceptions of the public on behalf of fossil fuel industry clients. Why would anyone call mundane documented lobbying business,’theory’? And many of you are silly enough to try your hand at ‘lobbying’ gratis….

    Like

  6. Mandas – it appears that you did not answer my question unless you are agreeing with me that you only use science when it fits with your ideology. If the latter, I accept your mea culpa, but reiterate my main point that I don’t see the left, including mainstream media like the NYT and networks, calling out the alternative medicine, anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-rBST, anti -chemical, nutritional nut crowd the same way they call out climate skeptics.

    WOW and Ian – I rest my case. Irony is a beautiful thing.

    Like

  7. If someone’s ideals are informed by the facts, then anyone who doesn’t like the results of those facts can, apparently, just claim that it’s “ideology” and that only facts concordant to ideology are being accepted.

    False.

    Your assertions mean that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to make an informed decision, since it would be indistinguishable from just selecting “nice” facts and rejecting all others.

    Thing is, the smarter end of the human gene pool can see your assertion is a load of crap.

    Like

  8. Me thinks Todd is in the pay of the GMO companies. He either works for them or is one of their paid shills. He obviously has not even read a science paper on the harmful effects of GMOs.

    He is the one who is being anti-science since the GMO companies have no science on their side when it comes to the negative effects of GMOs. Their only “science” is “that will never happen”, which has been proven to be wrong over and over again.

    Wishful thinking is not part of the science I am acquainted with.

    Like

  9. Nick? And you consider youself intelligent because you believe in AGW? And you think climate hystery contrarians are idiots? Of course, you do! Ah, and yes, you think you have all the evidence on your side, isn’t it?

    THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS STABLE SINCE 16 YEARS AND THERE IS ZERO CORRELATION WITH THE RISING CO2 LEVEL! You are a poor misguided fellow of unfounded climate alarmism and you will soon curse your belief.

    Like

  10. “THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS STABLE SINCE 16 YEARS ”

    Apart from the raving-lunatic ALL CAPS, that’s a completely false and unsupported statement you’ve made TWICE now.

    You are WRONG.

    Like

  11. And I guess you’re saying that something changed how CO2 operates in the past 16 years, right?

    Is it god, do you think? Do you think god has decided you’re too fucking thick to help yourself, so he’s having to produce a miracle to save your sorry and worthless ass?

    And do you consider your role here to be the local idiot climate denier?

    Like

  12. wow, you should be ashamed of telling incredible lies here to the audience and throwing names at people who try to enlighten your terribly incredible misinformed mental state:

    the mean global temperature anomalies (in deg C above the 20th century average) as published by the holy center of your climate church, NOAA, of the last 15 years were:

    1998: 0.60

    1999: 0.41

    2000: 0.43

    2001: 0.52

    2002: 0.57

    2003: 0.58

    2004: 0.54

    2005: 0.62

    2006: 0.56

    2007: 0.55

    2008: 0.48

    2009: 0.56

    2010: 0.62

    2011: 0.51

    2012: 0.57

    Are you able to interpret yourself the values or do you require informed help?

    Are you able to learn?

    Like

  13. Freddy, Freddy,

    You do realize the planet’s energy budget imbalance is not defined merely by average air temperatures (don’t you?)… Despite the fact that EVEN they most likely remain slightly positive these past 4 and dozen years…

    Like

  14. “as published by the holy center of your climate church”

    You really can’t help yourself lie, can you. It’s compulsive with you. Repulsive to anyone else.

    1999: 0.41

    2000: 0.43

    warming.

    2000: 0.43

    2001: 0.52

    warming.

    2001: 0.52

    2002: 0.57

    warming.

    2002: 0.57

    2003: 0.58

    warming

    2003: 0.58

    2005: 0.62

    warming.

    You claimed that there was no warming for 15 or 17 years.

    There’s been plenty of warming.

    Even according to YOUR picked data.

    Like

  15. Freddy: why don’t you show the data for 1997, 1996, 1995 etc? Is it because there’s something special about 1998?

    Like

  16. Wow, it is unlikely that freddykaitroll is the Duffer. Duff just parrots the talking points of the GWPF, but even he would likely stay far away from doubting evolution.

    Like

  17. @19 wow: I think you youself and anybody else who has read your crap in #19 knows to which degree your trial to maintain something utterly ridiculous is even for your low-level community an intellectual offense wihout comparison among your AGW church peers, Marco, Jan, Mandas, etc.

    Like

  18. freddy, you wouldn’t know crap if you saw it fall out of someone’s arse you spout it so often.

    YOU claimed no warming for 15 years.

    Plenty of times when there’s warming and whining about “oh, it’s crap” isn’t going to change that fact.

    Indeed, almost all the years are a warming trend and you can get more warming trends from that data YOU cherry picked than cooling or static ones.

    The trend is warming.

    You just failed heroically badly and are busy blustering your way to ignoring it.

    Typical denier claptrap.

    Like

  19. Todd,

    Since I don’t write articles for the NYT, I don’t see what your point is.

    And please, stop calling them climate sceptics. They are not nor have they ever been sceptics – they are deniers. If they want to be considered sceptics, they could start to be sceptical of some of the idiotic claims made by people who post at moronic sites like wattsupmybutt.

    Me – I have and always will call out the anti-science crowd who are opposed to GMOs or vaccines. So no mea culpa from me. I always use science and never base an opinion on ideology. I leave that to the deniers and political extremists from both sides of the divide. And given your rant against ‘the left’, I am pretty sure that would include you – who, by your own definition, is a hypocrite. You are the one who wants to use science to oppose anti-vaccinators etc, but who refuses to accept the science of climate change.

    How about you remove the plank from your own eye then take a good hard look in the mirror and read some actual science.

    Like

  20. Mandas, Phil Jones, one of your gurus and saints of your alarmistic AGW church has confessed in an interview with BBC the following:

    -Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.

    -There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.

    -The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.

    -This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.

    -The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.

    -The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.

    There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.

    Conclusion and recommendation to 6th row climate hysterics without scientific background like you: please learn from Phil Jones who shows a tremendous, even incredible, personal development to more truth, decency, objectivity, unambiguity, reasonable criticsm of the IPCC and dramatically exaggerated warming alarmism based on computer games. You and your warming world believers should try to understand what Phil Jones admitted. He is one of your idols, so follow him!

    Like

  21. As is to be expected from a climate denier like freddykaitroll, his statements referring to the interview Jones gave to the BBC are a gross distortion of what Jones really said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    This does not come as a surprise since freddykaitroll did nothing more but copy and paste his statements from the website of that deceiving, lying crook Anthony Watts:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

    which again is no surpise, as that is the most favoured “method” of climate deniers: they just look for some distorting content on other deniers’ website that they then use as “arguments” to spread their insane view of the world.

    However, this “method” invariably fails, because real skeptics like us tend to follow assertions back to their roots and normally can spot the fraud.

    Freddykaitroll has once again laid open his fraudulous character for all to see.

    Skeptical Scince has some more information on the issue:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html

    Like

  22. Jan, you are typical AGW church watchdog: never deal with issues which you don’t like, but eagerly moving to other stuff in order to avoid compromising situations for your church.

    By contrast, I am only interested on substance and truth. I was just focusing on what Phil Jones said. And you? You are dealing with WUWT, copy and paste and other unrelated stuff to divert the attention of readers from what I wanted to teach you and the like. What you are doing is dirty discussion style, biased thinking and missing targets.

    Like

  23. freddy, you’re a typical denier. Raving lunacy. Idiotic posts. Laughable claims, easily (and continually debunked). And no change in attitude whatsoever when the latest idiotic claim is shown to be false.

    Like

  24. “-There was no significant warming from 1998-2009.”

    More lies.

    Statistical significance of the warming 1988-2009 was 94.2%. +0.17C per decade trend

    Like

  25. Wow, you cite “-There was no significant warming from 1998-2009” and thereafter you talk about warming from 1988-2009.

    Did you change the period considered intentionally or did your mistake just escape your attention, or was is just a typo?

    Please explain!

    Like

  26. @31 Wow “Show your calculations”

    Just look at the chart, then even your AGW biased eyes should be able to discern the cooling trend.

    Interesting how the brain of an AGW church pupil works. You show him a curve with temperature readings over decades which everybody on earth can easily recognize as temperatures going down by time, and what does strange wow say? “Show me your calculations”. Hahahahaha, a good joke. Poor wow boy, open your eyes and try to judge yourself whether the temperatures in Isla De Pascua went down or up. You maybe know that down is the opposite of up, just for your help.

    Like

  27. Wow, not one single claim by climate church contrarians against your climate fraud and intentional alarmistic deception of the public with dramatically exaggerated computer game prophecies has been shown to be false, what a nonsense from your brain. It’s clear that you believe in such utter junk.

    Like

  28. Marco “Anyone can see Wow made a typo, but freddykaitroll decides to begin with casting doubt. How unsurprising!”

    A typo?????????????????? How can there be statistical significance of the warming 1988-2009 of 94.2%. with a +0.17C per decade trend, as wow said, when there was no temperature increase from 1998 to 2009. Are you currently accountable of what you are saying?? Maybe too much of spin from you which you can’t control consciously because of anger and hatred that your waming dreams are fake?? Please come back to reality and face the facts!

    Like

  29. “Wow, not one single claim by climate church”

    Correct, there is no climate church, except the one you live in, freddy.

    Like

  30. “How can there be statistical significance of the warming 1988-2009 of 94.2%. with a +0.17C per decade trend, as wow said, when there was no temperature increase from 1998 to 2009.”

    Because a trend isn’t “take two values and draw a straight line between them”.

    Calculating a “trend” like that gives you a trend with infinite error bars.

    Like

  31. “@31 Wow “Show your calculations”

    Just look at the chart,”

    Still not answered my question: show your calculations.

    Like

  32. “even your AGW biased eyes should be able to discern the cooling trend.”

    People who have a working brain don’t use their eyes to determine a trend and its statistical significance. They use statistics.

    You know, something that works, unlike your eyes.

    Like

  33. ” “Show me your calculations”. Hahahahaha, a good joke. ”

    Is that why you thought you could avoid showing your calculations?

    No, it was serious. Show your calculations.

    Like

  34. Wow, argueing with you is a waste of time since you are unwilling to learn and are stupid enough not to recognize where your deficiencies are and how big your deceived hallucinatory self-esteem is that you consider yourself superior in whatever dimension (e.g. the size of your crap) to anybody else. You were given lessons to learn and you missed enormously your targets.

    Like

  35. “Wow, argueing with you is a waste of time since you are unwilling to learn ”

    Talking of learning, it’s spelt “arguing”.

    And I’m not willing to learn false things. Try some truth for a change and maybe you’ll get somewhere with me.

    PS I note you still haven’t learnt how to calculate a trend. Your assertions about them are fabrications.

    Like

  36. “Wow, your data are wrong!”

    It was the data YOU put forward when you were asked for your evidence of AGW having stopped.

    That very same evidence proves that AGW is stronger than ever in the most recent years.

    If that data is wrong, then your assertion that AGW has stopped is unsupported by any valid data.

    Like

  37. @freddykaitroll,

    “You are dealing with WUWT, copy and paste and other unrelated stuff”

    How can this be unrelated, when I proved that that is exactly where you copied and pasted most of your posting from?

    “By contrast, I am only interested on [sic] substance and truth.”

    The only thing you are interested in is spreading lies and misinformation.

    Why do you trust proven liars like Anthony Watts and copy his writings as if it were a holy script? A little more real skepticism would suit you well, because then you might be able to distinguish between notorious liars (Anthony Watts and his ilk) and people who tell you the truth (REAL climate scientists).

    Like

  38. Jan, it would be mentally beneficial for you if you would concentrate on the content of what Phil Jones said, as presented in my post. Are you able to focus on essentials?

    Like

  39. Mandas – once again, a nonsensical post. Not surprising when dealing with raging lefties who go off on rants before thinking or comprehending. I suggest you you (re)read the whole thread over, starting with the original blog entry (including the embedded video) and its source. Interesting that you never commented on the rBST BS, given how you say you are always driven by science. And by the way, you have no idea what my views about climate change are – a fact you would realize if you actually bothered to read and comprehend something before ranting and making crap up. What a sanctimonious tool you are. A caricature of of the irrational arrogant left. Adios Douche.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s