Mother Jones has taken back control of the narrative.
In a major report released late last month, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on climate science, told us it was more certain than ever that humans are causing global warming. It also upgraded its projections for sea level rise by the end of the century, and even broached the subject of climate change’s irreversibility: We may already have done so much harm to the Earth that some of it can’t be undone in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetimes of future generations as far out as most of us can imagine.
This, you might think, would be quite a media story. Yet instead, something funny happened on the way from the scientists’ heads to the public’s ears, and many journalists instead embraced a very different narrative—in many ways, almost the opposite narrative. Global warming, they suggested, had “paused” or was slowing down. And scientists didn’t really understand why.
How could this disconnect, this huge divergence of narratives, have happened?
That would be called “massive fraud by the IPCC.“
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
OT tip, I would love to see this happen
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/10/twitter-shuts-down-truckers-for-the-constitution-2787120.html?utm_campaign=&utm_content=beforeit39snews-buttonsunderheadline&utm_source=direct-b4in.info&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2FcIqa
But, but, but, the MODELS! 😆
Models not coming to standstill in 1998!
http://youtu.be/dzcemN0iPtI
This is a better illustration of IPCC modeling…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJfx0d-mmIo
“misleading journalism” Redundant.
“Global warming, they suggested, had “paused” or was slowing down. And scientists didn’t really understand why.”
Hey, the king’s naked!
Mooney is a loonie
Mooney does not mention that the models did not predict the standstill. He talks of cherry picking 1998, but you can start at 1997.