Journalistic Integrity Revealed

This is simply mind blowing. Long time Editor & Publisher columnist Steve Outing calls upon the dead tree media to abandon objectivity and become activists against global warming. It’s no wonder the term "journalistic integrity" is becoming a joke.

Climate Change: Get Over Objectivity, Newspapers: I've been thinking a lot about climate change (aka, global warming) a lot lately. … I've also been thinking about the newspaper industry and global warming. And frankly, I don't think newspapers are doing enough. Indeed, newspapers' fabled commitment to "objectivity" has been a detriment to efforts to combat global warming. The industry still has a lot of power to influence people. How about if newspapers abandon their old way of doing things when it comes to the issue of global warming, and turn their influence to good?

Earth to idiot – dangerous manmade global warming is a false myth. A product of inaccurate computer programming. The second law of thermodynamics, the scarcity of the specific narrow band of infrared radiation the covalent bonds in carbon dioxide can absorb, and the scarcity of atmospheric carbon dioxide itself – because it is the essential molecule required for life to exist – are big gapping holes in the scary bad hypothesis. The big flaws dooming this theory as a valid explanation of the real world.

I can forgive the scientifically inept for being brainwashed by the bad work and worse reporting of this politically motivated grant funded “research”. I don’t forgive anyone calling for the end of using of reason, logic and skepticism. I hold in contempt any journalist that does not even read the news.

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory: Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints. … Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Something horribly bad is happening to the environment and it is the delusional belief that burning rocks hurts ecosystems but clear cutting the surface of the planet for ethanol and biodiesel farms is saving nature. I’m clearly getting very tired of ignorant activists.