‘Journalists are notoriously under-informed on science issues…’
(Michael Barnes, Liberty Headlines) Climate scientist Roy Spencer is taking on NBC political director Chuck Todd and the elite news media over its extreme climate- change bias.
Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the advanced microwave scanning radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
He also served as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.
Todd hosts the once-venerated “Meet the Press,” a Washington, D.C.-based Sunday-morning news talk show where heads of state, academics, top government officials and journalists discuss important issues and set the table for the coming week’s news cycle.
Heading into 2019, Todd announced that climate change skepticism would be banned from “Meet the Press.”
The NBC political director declared on air that, “We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter and human activity is a major cause. Period.”
Critics viewed the move as an attempt to vilify and censor disagreement, a concern that has taken center stage in the era of President Donald Trump.
Spencer called Todd’s reasoning a “strawman argument,” where he and other journalists are arguing against things that climate-change consensus skeptics have never claimed.
“I cannot think of a single credentialed, published skeptical climate scientist who doesn’t believe in the ‘existence’ of climate change, or that ‘the Earth is getting hotter,’ or even that human activity is likely a ‘major cause,’” wrote Spencer in a recent blog post.
Spencer named other highly credentialed climate scientists who by virtue of their principled disagreement are now banned from appearing in elite media, not that their views were ever represented fairly before NBC’s new policy.
“Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy, and myself (to name a few) all believe these things. That journalists continue to characterize us as having extremist views shows just how far journalism has fallen as a (somewhat) respectable profession,” Spencer said.
To illustrate his point, the eminent climatologist asked, “What if I claimed that all journalists are sex abusers?”
No reasonable person would believe that, he said. But the damage would be done.
“I would wager that up to half of the U.S. population has been led to believe that climate change skeptics are ‘deniers’ (as in, Holocaust deniers),” Spencer said—which is exactly what Boston Globe opinion columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in 2007.
Spencer reiterated several glaring problems with the media’s politically-driven climate change agenda.
First, he states that even if humans were responsible for 60 percent of ocean and atmosphere temperature increases over the past 60 years—which is what the most aggressive climate change models insist, like the IPCC at the United Nations—global temperatures would only increase by an eventual 1-degree Celsius.
That’s the science, Spencer explains.
But the IPCC somehow maintains that temperatures will one-day increase three times that amount, and friendly news programs only allow the most vocal climate alarmists to speak about it, Spencer said.
IPCC reports are also the basis of U.N. redistribution-of-wealth climate plans, like the Paris Climate Agreement.
Former Vice President and climate activist Al Gore even admitted that the last IPCC report was “torqued up.”
“The language that the IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately—how [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?” Gore said in late October.
Climate models are also adjusted in an ad-hoc manner to produce desired results, Spencer claimed, while hammering Todd for his own climate science denialism.
“Journalists are notoriously under-informed on science issues,” he lamented.
“The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that—a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist,” Spencer said.