Tuesday, 24 January 2017

The Arrogance of the Main Stream Media

Professor Tim Ball

Tim Ball addresses a meeting at Australian Parliament House
The arrogance of the main stream, and even too much of the medium stream media, believe they have a divine right. It is the same. They are panicking because the internet and Trumps’s use of Twitter has and is bypassing them completely. They accelerated their own demise by not accepting the responsibility that comes with being the Fifth Estate. 

It is sad and pathetic to see even Fox trying to defend people like the New York Times journalist who claimed the MLK bust was removed. They mumbled about it being an honest mistake. No, it wasn’t. 

It was a deliberate story to turn most people, but especially African Americans, against Trump. His objective is confirmed by the grossly inadequate research. All he had to ask was “Where is the bust?” When called out he produced the cynical, insulting, and inadequate explanation that somebody stood in front of the statue. The apology was not to the people or the President, but to other journalists because they all stick together as the Fox people proved.  The story was fake news, pure and simple. 

The difference was Trump and his people called out the story in a way no politician would dare do before. The media action and reaction was precisely the type of behaviour the public rejected in the election and why they turned to the new sources.

For some 300 years, the mainstream media has been the mouthpiece for the power elite as William Cowper’s 1772 poem attests.

How shall I speak of thee or thy power address,
Thou God of our idolatry, the Press?
By thee, religion, liberty and laws
Exert their influence and advance their cause;
By thee worse plagues than Pharaoh’s land befell,
Diffused, make earth the vestibule of Hell;
Thou fountain, at which drink the good and wise;
Thou ever-bubbling spring of endless lies;
Like Eden’s dead probationary tree,

Knowledge of good and evil is from thee. 

We are witnessing history as that “power” is virtually gone. As I have written, it is the final stage of the American Revolution as the people now have access to information. There was a brief stage in the Revolutionary when Pamphlets became the information that by passed the mainstream media, but it didn’t last. 

= = = = = = = 


Tim's CV is here. Tim's latest book, ‘Human Caused Global Warming. The Biggest Deception in History’ is an abbreviated, illustrated, version for those overwhelmed by the science. Its production was triggered by the exploitation of the fact that 80 percent of the population are arts-oriented.

Robert Merlin Carter: 9 March 1942 – 19 January 2016

It is hard to believe that it is a year since we lost Prof Bob Carter.

Robert Merlin Carter: 9 March 1942 – 19 January 2016

It is equally hard to realise that it will be a year, tomorrow, since Bob's funeral.

Bob was one of the world's greats in fighting the inaccuracies of the global man-made climate change hoax. As a tribute to Bob, Australian Climate Sceptics re-publishes some of one of the last works in which he was involved.
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015
The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. 

A webpage for the book has been created here. The summary below is taken from the book's concluding chapter. You can read it for free, or buy a copy from the Heartland Store. A collection of reviews is here.
The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. 
Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias. 
Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals. 
In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis – that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions -- is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor. It simply ignores the alternative and null hypothesis, amply supported by empirical research, that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. 
The results of the global climate models (GCMs) relied on by IPCC are only as reliable as the data and theories “fed” into them. Most climate scientists agree those data are seriously deficient and IPCC’s estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 is too high. We estimate a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7 Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming. The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades. 
In a similar fashion, all five of IPCC’s postulates, or assumptions, are readily refuted by real-world observations, and all five of IPCC’s claims relying on circumstantial evidence are refutable. For example, in contrast to IPCC’s alarmism, we find neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. In any case, such evidence cannot be invoked to “prove” a hypothesis, but only to disprove one. IPCC has failed to refute the null hypothesis that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. 
Read the remainder HERE or buy a copy from the Heartland Store.