It was as expected. The presentation of the IPCC WG2 climate report was a doom-and-gloom story, uncritically regurgitated by the mainstream media. They really loved it and we again got our share of images of smoke stacks, exhaust pipes, dry land, melting ice, floods, bewildered polar bears and the like.
I was glad to hear some critical comments in a discussion on the way this report was communicated in the media. But even those were based on the assumption that “we know it all and we just need a better way to promote the scare”…
No journalist who asked what is really known. And if this knowledge warrants the proposed actions.
That is where the “consensus” comes handy. If one agrees on a consensus position, then nobody has to discuss about what scientists exactly agree on. Or if this theory out the many is really the only one that matters.
No journalist who asked what the real proof is. What is that extraordinary proof which we rely on as justification of “action”?
They seems to be mesmerized by the 2,000 pages of the report, without looking at the big picture.
No journalist who asked how these smart brains could model an intrinsic chaotic system and exactly how they know what will be happen to us, even almost a century ahead.
They just trust the scientists, even if none of their doom stories came true yet. But maybe, just maybe, they got it right this time.
No journalist who said “sorry guys, but weather is not climate”.
They just believe that the scientists who state that weather events are proof that global warming is real and happening. Telling us that in fact no event is proof of global warming, but, well, yes, it is. We hear that cold, warmth, drought, floods, melting ice, increasing ice, more storms, less storms,… are proof of global warming. Why don’t they even question the contradiction? Even stay far away from it.
No journalist who asked how it is possible that there is ONLY negative sides on the issue. Why keep on hammering on things that could, may, might, possibly go wrong?
Relying on fear to push a message.
Only one side is doing the talking, ignoring/excluding/ridiculing the other side. In the name of the “consensus”. That is why the consensus is so important. If there is a professed “consensus” between scientists and skeptics are denigrated, why would a journalist even have the intention wanting to acknowledge the other side?