Are we going to see more MSM reports on the uncertainty of climate science?

Regardless of what AGW true believers say, MSM has been solidly behind man made global warming repeatedly reporting the disastrous consequences of everything from species extinction to Arctic ice shrinking to floods, droughts and hurricanes. They've brought in statisticians to ';prove'; things like the temperature records and have refused to report on skeptics events like the recent ICCC4 in Chicago.



However, now an MSM outlet Newsweek (from MSNBC) is making comments like the following:



';...scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago.';



';The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause.';



';...many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments.';



';At the moment, however, certainty about how fast攁nd how much攇lobal warming changes the earth檚 climate does not appear to be one of those reasons (to reduce CO2 emissions).';



Might this indicate a shift in the MSM? Is this a more reasoned and rational approach to climate change and climate policies?



Source: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncerAre we going to see more MSM reports on the uncertainty of climate science?
Whatever keeps the people controlled we'll keep hearing about. Whatever sells.Are we going to see more MSM reports on the uncertainty of climate science?
%26lt;%26lt;However, now an MSM outlet Newsweek (from MSNBC) is making comments like the following:%26gt;%26gt;



Newsweek is not an MSNBC publication, but more importantly, it is not a scientific publication. Indeed, ironically, they were the main publication in the 1970s to treat the global cooling stuff seriously!!!!!!
What I think we're seeing is the redefinition of what the MSM is.
The claims to scientific proof of warmers have been in retreat for the last 12 years. Back in 1998, the IPCC was bold enough to claim that the hockey stick graph was irrefutable proof that human activity had been causing significant warming since the start of the industrial revolution and the medieval warming period had done a disappearing act.



The claims of certainly have been in retreat since then, but of course the IPCC refers to these revisions as 'new discoveries' not admissions of error. If the global temperatures continue to plateau, the IPCC may have to make a new discovery that maybe human activity doesn't affect the temperature nearly as much as natural factors.
I wouldn't count on balance from MSM. What do you think an environmental reporter does? They report on the dangers of human caused climate change. It would be shooting themselves in the foot to say it might not be such a big problem after all. That doesn't even take into consideration that they would also be stabbing fellow democrats in the back that stake their reputation on this. They would be blackballed by political activists and shunned at the elite parties. They would be made the focus of attacks by being associated with holocaust deniers.



I don't have much faith in members of the MSM having your honesty regarding simple truth for them to be willing to risk that. They also put their names on the bylines it so they have more to lose. Even the elites in Britain proclaimed Monckton as the winner of the global warming debate at oxford. The MSM is going to have a problem if even the elites in academia ';overwhelmingly'; deny the settled science. So much for the consensus but that is another subject.
Possibly.

It's not important, though. It doesn't affect the science.

Also, much of it would appear to be baseless. In other words, very poor reporting. Or perhaps it's just the fact that the majority or this author's articles concern finance?



';...scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago.';

Which scientists? Skeptical scientists?



';The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause.';

The backlash was mainly from skeptics and deniers and those who don't question their news sources.



';...many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments.';

Responding with data and reasoned arguments simply results in fingers in ears and cries of, ';LA LA LA LA LA LA!';



';At the moment, however, certainty about how fast攁nd how much攇lobal warming changes the earth檚 climate does not appear to be one of those reasons (to reduce CO2 emissions).';

To whom? Skeptics again?



_