Gay Patriot Header Image

Will legacy media give same attention to scientist recanting global warming alarmism as it gave supposed skeptic supposedly changing his mind (on global warming)?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:18 pm - April 24, 2012.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming),Media Bias

In December, we reported (along with other conservative bloggers) that a Media-hyped global warming “skeptic” was no such thing.

Wonder if Yahoo! (who led with a story about said supposed skeptic) will similarly hype this story about a global warming alarmist recanting:

Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change’s deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were ‘alarmist’.

Lovelock admits he “made a mistake”:

The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. . . .  We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.

The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world

[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.

He told MSNBC that “he now thinks he had been ‘extrapolating too far.’”  (MSNBC link via Instapundit.)  Well, at least MSNBC has reported the story.  Wonder if other left-leaning media outlets will do the same.

Share

10 Comments

  1. Will legacy media give same attention to scientist recanting global warming alarmism as it gave supposed skeptic supposedly changing his mind (on global warming)?

    No, for the same reason they won’t report on vicious black-on-white hate crimes: it doesn’t fit their politically preferred and pre-determined narrative.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - April 24, 2012

  2. Nope.

    Here is what’s going to happen. James Lovelock will be pressured GREATLY by the warming industrial complex, and will recant his recantation. He will come out in a week or so and issue a retraction for “choosing his words poorly” or something like that. The same thing happened with skeptic James Randi. When Climategate broke, he issued a commentary saying that, yes, we should be skeptical of all sciences, even Climate Science. He wasn’t saying it was junk science, but we should keep a skeptics eye even on things that seem more certain than not. His was a reasonable response. The skeptic community was OUTRAGED and he was forced to issue a retraction and apology for being wrong. As it turns out, you can be skeptical of many things, but, in the official skeptics world, you CAN’T be skeptical of AGW.

    Comment by sonicfrog — April 24, 2012 @ 2:01 pm - April 24, 2012

  3. That should have been “Warmist Industrial Complex”.

    Comment by sonicfrog — April 24, 2012 @ 2:01 pm - April 24, 2012

  4. Some researchers have claimed that the thirteenth century was warmer than ours. Why was that? There were no motor vehicles to polute the air. There were no oil refineries and factories belching smoke into the atmosphere as in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Could it have been cause by all the farts from horses and cows?

    Comment by Roberto — April 24, 2012 @ 2:20 pm - April 24, 2012

  5. Some researchers have claimed that the thirteenth century was warmer than ours.

    It was. England grew grapes for wine… Greenland was green. They recently established that it was a worldwide warming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html

    Why was that?

    Natural cycles. The Roman Warm Period was also warm… then things cooled off in the late Empire and early Dark Age, where people starved from falling agricultural production… then got warmer for the Medieval Warm Period… then cooled off again for the Mini Ice Age of the 1600s… now warming again. It happens; it’s called “nature”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 24, 2012 @ 2:27 pm - April 24, 2012

  6. Some researchers have claimed that the thirteenth century was warmer than ours.

    That WAS the scientific consensus until the Lords of AGW came along, and Michael Mann introduced the flawed Hockey Stick graph.

    Comment by sonicfrog — April 24, 2012 @ 3:17 pm - April 24, 2012

  7. I’ve followed James Randi and his JREF organization for years. It seems odd to me a group that prides itself on it’s healthy skepticism would go in the tank when it comes to AGW.
    Also noting that when you see Randi’s videos (tons of them on YouTube), he routinely suggests more laws/bigger government as the solutions to quack medicine, fortune tellers, etc.
    I believe skepticism/conservatism to be more compatible than skepticism/leftism, but that doesn’t appear to be the case with Mr. Randi.
    I still like him, though.

    Comment by Jman1961 — April 24, 2012 @ 4:24 pm - April 24, 2012

  8. “I’ve followed James Randi and his JREF organization for years. It seems odd to me a group that prides itself on it’s healthy skepticism would go in the tank when it comes to AGW.”

    I’m not surprised at all: The overwhelming majority of the skeptics I’ve known have been leftists.

    Comment by pst314 — April 24, 2012 @ 8:25 pm - April 24, 2012

  9. Waiting for Levi to comment. :-)

    Comment by The Livewire — April 25, 2012 @ 3:39 pm - April 25, 2012

  10. The headline would be pretty tame: “Former global warming guru still says global warming exists but will kill less than billions of people by 2100.”

    So that leaves possible, what, hundreds of millions dead? Hardly a hearty disavowal.

    Comment by rt — April 26, 2012 @ 2:18 am - April 26, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.