The press, in reality, gets its marching orders from people like those 75 scientists that comprise 97% of all 'scientists'. This is an old shell game. A scientist makes a scary prediction. then the news media reports it. Then if it doesn't come true, it is the media's fault, not the scientists. For example, back in the seventies, we were bombarded daily by articles like this one.
Life magazine of January 3, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”
And on a daily basis a 'prominent' scientist would be trotted out in front of a camera and authenticate the claim. Now look at the greenies. Not long ago we had a question about this very fact and the greenies in essence said, "It was all the media's fault. They were the ones spreading that false assumption." Ha! Ha! How slimey can you get? Just look at this admission:
Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ ― and readers’ ― attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
So even the scientific community openly admits that they use their willing dupes, the press, to their political end.
Notice how the greenies are always short on science, but long on buck passing?
It would be good to have seen a link to the actual article for context.
However, let's see where Al Gore is coming from. He makes a lot of money from Climate Change. His speeches cost over 6 figures each, he has interests in things like Generation Investment Management, is non-executive director of companies who want his climate change advice. He even advises governments (e.g.UK). So he will lose a lot of income if climate change becomes a non-issue.
Recently, there have been articles in the press, The Economist for one, that have not been so convinced about climate change.
I think Al is just trying to sow the seeds of doubt about that type of article. He knows that most newspaper readers will never look at a scientific paper so he is quite safe. He is just saying that some in the media may be wavering but the science is still settled.
Articles by the press are often works of fiction written for the express purpose of selling papers.
Scientific papers are records and interpretation of actual data.
"However, let's see where Al Gore is coming from. He makes a lot of money from Climate Change"
He makes NO money from it. He donates ALL of it.
He is very rich because he was heavily invested in Apple and Google.
Many people get their information about science from the press. But the press often gives its interpretation of what scientists say than what scientists actually say. Some rags have highly politicized views on science and cherry pick things said by scientists out of context to support their bias.
Many YA members, especially the so called "skeptics" post questions with such statements as NASA or some other scientific organization says, and then link, not to the wehsite of the scientific organization, but to a blog or to the press.
Gore speaks about reviewing articles about global warming written by scientists versus those written by the press. What is significant about the comparison??
