AP sells out to climate delusions
The Associated Press has a long history dating back to 1846. It was founded as a cooperative to share the cost of transmitting the news of the Mexican-American War. Today its coverage is global and it is generally regarded as one of the most trusted sources of newsgathering”. It claims a “commitment to the highest standards of objective, accurate journalism.”The global warming true believers are a faith based group who cling to their dogma even when facts have demonstrated it is based on invalid assumptions.
That may explain why it recently went to great lengths to recharacterize the way in which those who do not accept the climate orthodoxy are described. According to a news report, it has updated its Stylebook entry on global warming to term “those who reject mainstream climate science” as climate change doubters. The news report also stated that this Stylebook change came about because “scientists who consider themselves real skeptics complain that non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase skeptic.”
In science, a hypothesis is tested independently to confirm or deny its validity. The hypothesis of a highly sensitive climate system has been tested in the real world by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the late 1800s to today—an increase from about 285 ppm to 400ppm. While that increase is not a doubling, it is a 70% increase and the temperature has only increased about 1 degree F, not in line with predictions that a doubling would cause an increase of 3 degrees or more. The models that embody the beliefs of the climate establishment provide the foundation for predictions of catastrophe have proved to be flawed, seriously over predicting actual temperature increases.
Instead of changing its Stylebook on what to call those who shine the light of fact on modern day charlatans, the Associated Press would do better to come up with a term or terms for those who persist in beliefs that are contradicted by fact and science. How about delusional?
That term might be too harsh but opportunist isn’t. Those who are at the forefront of climate orthodoxy have enriched their careers and themselves by marketing an image that is in conflict with reality and scientific facts. In the process, they have misled many who are to willing to accept views that come from self proclaimed authorities and experts. Many of these people predicted mass starvation by the end of the 20th century, an exhaustion of natural resources, increasing environmental degradation, and a variety of epidemics caused by technology. None of these predictions have been borne out and the environment in the developed world continues to improve.