Forbes, Steve

The board of the FreedomWorks Foundation, the group's policy and education arm, includes Steve Forbes, the publisher of Forbes, which recently named ExxonMobil "Green Company of the Year."

=uber: <a href="https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6950F840-FB80-FCB0-D505-8AB1FA685F08">https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6950F840-FB80-FCB0-D505-8AB1FA685F08</a>Boston Brahmin, opium trade:
The influence of these opium fortunes seeped into virtually every aspect of American life. That influence was cultural: the transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson married John Murray Forbes’s daughter, and his father-in-law’s fortune helped provide Emerson with the cushion to become a professional thinker. It was found in technology:Forbes’s son watched over his father’s investment in the Bell Telephone Company as its first president, and Abiel Abbot Low provided start-up money for the first transatlantic cable. And it was ideological: Joseph Coolidge’s heirs founded the Council on Foreign Relations. Several companies that would play major roles in American history were also the product of drug profits, among them the United Fruit Company, started by the Coolidge family. Scratch the history of an institution or a person with the name Forbes attached to it, and there’s a good chance you’ll see that opium is involved. Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry’s great-grandfather was Francis Blackwell Forbes, who got rich selling opium in China.<div class="byline news-politics" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://alternet.org/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); outline: none;">AlterNet</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/bill-berkowitz" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); outline: none;">Bill Berkowitz</a> [2]</div><div class="headline" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Forbes Journalist Fired After Reporting the Truth About Cliven Bundy</h1></div><div class="the_body body_news-politics clearfix"><div class="story_tools_bottom"><div class="text-size"><div class="story_tools_email"><div class="story_tools_print"><div class="story_tools_share"><div style="clear: left;"><div class="story-date" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">May 8, 2014  |  </div>Fallout from the Cliven Bundy affair continues to reverberate in a myriad of ways: Right-wing talk shows hosts have retreated; paranoid rumors appear to be tearing apart the antigovernment militia folk still hanging out at the Bundy ranch; and a well-respected reporter has been unexpectedly and inexplicably dropped by a mainstream outlet. After writing a piece titled “Federal Grazing Program in Bundy Dispute Rips Off Taxpayers, Wild Horses,” <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/vickeryeckhoff/2014/04/25/federal-grazing-program-in-bundy-dispute-rips-off-taxpayers-wild-horses/" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">which appeared on the Forbes website</a> [3], journalist Vickery Eckhoff was cut loose from her writing gig with the magazine.In a blog entry headlined “<a href="http://vickeryeckhoff.com/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); outline: none;">Cliven Bundy Ended My Forbes Gig</a> [4],” Eckhoff writes that while she’s “not quite sure why” she was let go, she assumes that it was no coincidence that she was dumped some 10 hours after the piece appeared on the Forbes website.Eckhoff notes: “A few people have suggested it may be on account of <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/159943/tax-day-farms-owned-rich-provide-massive-tax-shelter" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); outline: none;">Steve Forbes keeping cattle on his New Jersey estate</a> [5] to reduce his property taxes. Others have mentioned Forbes' partnership with Fox News.”Why the editors at Forbes decided she was no longer wanted as a contributor is a mystery. Some of her previous articles included: “Is Your K-Y Jelly Cruelty-Free? Do You Care?”; “Racing Industry Silent About Slaughtered Thoroughbreds”; and “WSJ Serves Up Tainted Journalism On Horse Slaughter Plate.”Eckhoff's work appears in a number of major media outlets. Some of the topics she covers are, as she describes, “the horse industry, particularly racing, breeding, responsible ownership and the political and industry forces that are working to open horse slaughterhouses again in the US.”Eckhoff’s firing came the night before she was scheduled to speak at the American Equine Summit. (The topic of her presentation was titled “Disinformation in the Media”—<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoqod2n4WFw&list=UUGBYxnlKdd_rCI2OnXyn-BQ" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); outline: none;">it can be seen here</a> [6].)According to Eckhoff, the Forbes piece “got the largest audience in a single day of any article I’ve ever written. I think it’s now up to 22,000 views.” (As of Sunday, May 4, the piece had received over 33,000 views.) Her story“picks up on the Cliven Bundy story and it looks at the consequences to the federal grazing program for taxpayers and wild horses."In announcing her firing to the audience at the American Equine Summit, Eckhoff said she’s had “a very great platform” at Forbes, and that she was able “to introduce animal industries as not just a human interest story, but as a political story, as an economic story, as a food safety story, as an environmental story.”Eckhoff’s American Equine Summit presentation begins with her citing two of Mark Twain’s statements about the power and ownership of the media: “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uniformed. If you read the newspaper you’re misinformed,” and “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.”Among the many interesting points she makes in her presentation is that “disinformation” is driven by a set of mainstream “media values.” She points out that “everybody loves animal stories,” and unfortunately, the media believes anyone can write them, regardless of their lack of expertise, scientific background or familiarity with the subject. Fact checking is lax, “corrections and retractions are discretionary.” The desire to get the story out first is paramount. In addition, she points out that “animal advocates [are] mistrusted as sources unless [they represent] national welfare groups”; “Industry spokespeople [are] viewed as trustworthy.”On her blog, Eckhoff explained that her Forbes piece basically “covered some of the same territory Paul Krugman of the New York Times, Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, and Jon Stewart addressed for millions of viewers. The only difference is that mine exposed why the grazing program was not only a bad deal for taxpayers, but [also for] wild horses. Oh, and I got the boot while they got ratings!”She pointed out that in her two-year experience at Forbes, she had “never been challenged on a single fact.”Why Eckhoff was fired remains a mystery.She pledges to “continue writing on this topic, aiming for a more mainstream news audience, to reach the kinds of readers who really care about their taxes being wasted by the federal government on wild horse roundups and a grazing program that damages public lands at the public’s expense. One would think this was right up Forbes’ alley — the story appeared in its ‘Taxes’ section — but, apparently ... no.”</div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/forbes-fires-journalist-after-reporting-truth-about-cliven-bundy" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/forbes-fires-journalist-after-reporting-truth-about-cliven-bundy</a>
 </div></div></div></div></div></div>
=

Jon S:

But I get it.  You can't trust these scientists, their judgment is clouded by money.  Why do you oppose these scientists?

NEIL CAVUTO (5/4/2013): I think it borders on lunacy that we commit billions — dare I say it, Charles — trillions of dollars to something that might not be.

STEVE FORBES(11/24/2012): This is simply another government attempt to extort money from businesses.

==

Steve Forbes is National Co-Chair, a Senior Policy Advisor, and a member of 2008 <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Republican_Party" title="Republican Party" class="mw-redirect">Republican</a> presidential hopeful <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rudolph_W.Giuliani:U.S.presidential_election,2008" title="Rudolph W. Giuliani: U.S. presidential election, 2008">Rudy Giuliani</a>'s economic policy team.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a>

<hr />

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#Profiles">1 Profiles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#Affiliations">2 Affiliations</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#Resources_and_articles">3 Resources and articles</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#Related_SourceWatch_articles">3.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#References">3.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#External_articles">3.3 External articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Profiles</h2>

Steve Forbes was born Malcom 'Steve' Forbes, Jr. on July 18, 1947, in Morristown, NJ, the son of wealthy publisher <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Malcolm_Forbes" title="Malcolm Forbes">Malcolm Forbes</a>.

After graduating from Princeton in 1970, Steve Forbes joined the family business. Eventually, he become President and CEO of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes,_Inc." title="Forbes, Inc.">Forbes, Inc.</a> and President and Editor-in-Chief of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes" title="Forbes" class="mw-redirect">Forbes</a> Magazine. In 1996 and 2000, Forbes entered the GOP presidential primaries, with his family fortune giving him instant political credibility. In 1996, he lost the nomination to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Dole" title="Bob Dole">Bob Dole</a> and withdrew from the race in February 2000.

According to his official biographical note "in both 1996 and 2000, Mr. Forbes campaigned vigorously for the Republican nomination for the Presidency. Key to his platform were a flat tax, medical savings accounts, a new Social Security system for working Americans, parental choice of schools for their children, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Term_limits" title="Term limits">term limits</a> and a strong national defense. Mr. Forbes will continue to energetically promote this agenda".

According to his biographical note, "Forbes was the Honorary Chairman of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Hope,_Growth_and_Opportunity&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity (page does not exist)">Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity</a> (1996-1999), a grassroots, issues advocacy organization founded to advance pro-growth, pro-freedom and pro-family issues." <a href="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/bios/forbes2.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/bios/forbes2.html" rel="nofollow">[1]</a>

He served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Empower_America" title="Empower America">Empower America</a>, a political reform organization founded by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jack_Kemp" title="Jack Kemp" class="mw-redirect">Jack Kemp</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_J.Bennett" title="William J. Bennett">William J. Bennett</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeane_J.Kirkpatrick" title="Jeane J. Kirkpatrick">Jeane J. Kirkpatrick</a> from December 1993 until June 1996.

He serves on the Board of Trustees of Princeton University, as well as on other boards, including <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Ronald_Reagan_Presidential_Foundation" title="The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation">The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation</a>, The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute" title="American Enterprise Institute">American Enterprise Institute</a>, and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union" title="National Taxpayers Union">National Taxpayers Union</a>. His name has been associated with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century" title="Project for the New American Century">Project for the New American Century</a>. He is also on the Board of Overseers of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He is also on the National Advisory Council for the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Free_Enterprise_Foundation" title="Free Enterprise Foundation">Free Enterprise Foundation</a>. He is also on the board of trustees of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Freedom_House" title="Freedom House">Freedom House</a>.

"In 1985, President Reagan named Mr. Forbes Chairman of the bi-partisan <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Board_for_International_Broadcasting&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Board for International Broadcasting (page does not exist)">Board for International Broadcasting</a> (BIB). Mr. Forbes was reappointed to his post by President George H. W. Bush and served until 1993. In both 1996 and 2000, Mr. Forbes campaigned vigorously for the Republican nomination for the Presidency." <a href="http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?boardmember=16&page=10" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?boardmember=16&page=10" rel="nofollow">[2]</a>

According to his biographical note, "he graduated cum laude in 1966 from Brooks School in North Andover, Massachusetts. He received a B.A. in history from Princeton in 1970. At Princeton, he was the founding editor of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Business_Today&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Business Today (page does not exist)">Business Today</a>, which became the country's largest magazine published by students for students, with a circulation of 200,000. The magazine continues to be published today by Princeton undergraduates." <a href="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/bios/forbes2.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/bios/forbes2.html" rel="nofollow">[3]</a>

Speaking in Sydney in January 2003, Forbes praised the tort reform - "law abuse" as he referred to it - efforts of the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr. Changes in Texas, Forbes said, had forced trial lawyers to "flee like rats to Oklahoma" and other states that haven't embraced tort reform. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/13/1073877829318.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/13/1073877829318.html" rel="nofollow">[4]</a>

On Saturday March 6, 2004, Forbes will be a keynote speaker via video conference to the right wing New Zealand Political party, ACT (the acronym for Association of Consumers and Taxpayers). <a href="http://www.act.org.nz/conference2004" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.act.org.nz/conference2004" rel="nofollow">[5]</a>.

<h2>Affiliations</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan_Presidential_Foundation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation (page does not exist)">Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute" title="American Enterprise Institute">American Enterprise Institute</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union" title="National Taxpayers Union">National Taxpayers Union</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century" title="Project for the New American Century">Project for the New American Century</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Freedom_House" title="Freedom House">Freedom House</a></li>

<li>Advisory Board, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Growth" title="World Growth">World Growth</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>Resources and articles</h2>

<h3>Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg" title="Bilderberg">Bilderberg</a> - American Friends of Bilderberg</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century" title="Project for the New American Century">Project for the New American Century</a>, PNAC, original signer.</li>

</ul>

<h3>References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#cite_ref-0" title="">↑</a> Jennifer Rubin, <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21485" class="external text" title="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21485" rel="nofollow">"Rudy's Financial Team,"</a> Human Events Online, July 12, 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.worldgrowth.org/who/?subsec=3" class="external text" title="http://www.worldgrowth.org/who/?subsec=3" rel="nofollow">Advisory Board</a>, World Growth, accessed September 1, 2008.</li>

</ol>

<h3>External articles</h3>

<ul>

<li>Forbes.com, "<a href="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/bios/forbes2.html" class="external text" title="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/bios/forbes2.html" rel="nofollow">Steve Forbes</a>", undated, accessed January 14, 2004.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.realchange.org/forbes.htm" class="external text" title="http://www.realchange.org/forbes.htm" rel="nofollow">Steve Forbes' Skeleton Closet</a>, RealChange.org. Includes links to primary source documents.</li>

<li>John Huxley, "<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/13/1073877829318.html" class="external text" title="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/13/1073877829318.html" rel="nofollow">Folks back home would just love Carr, says right-wing Republican tycoon</a>", Sydney Morning Herald, January 14, 2004.</li>

<li>Freedom House, "<a href="http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?boardmember=16&page=10" class="external text" title="http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?boardmember=16&page=10" rel="nofollow">Biography</a>", Accessed December 2006.</li>

</ul>

---

Forbes Magazine is a business magazine run by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes" title="Steve Forbes">Steve Forbes</a> and owned by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes,_Inc." title="Forbes, Inc.">Forbes, Inc.</a>; like the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wall_Street_Journal" title="Wall Street Journal">Wall Street Journal</a>, it runs columns of right wing misinformation.

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes_Magazine#Articles_and_resources">1 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes_Magazine#References">1.1 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes_Magazine#Related_SourceWatch_articles">1.2 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes_Magazine#External_resources">1.3 External resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes_Magazine#External_articles">1.4 External articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Articles and resources</h2>

<h3>References</h3>

<h3>Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Forbes" title="Steve Forbes">Steve Forbes</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forbes,_Inc." title="Forbes, Inc.">Forbes, Inc.</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>External resources</h3>

<h3>External articles</h3>

<ul>

<li>Michael Tobis and Scott Mandia (with input from Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Kevin Trenberth) (2011-01-06). <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/" class="external text" title="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/" rel="nofollow">Forbes’ rich list of nonsense</a>. RealClimate. Retrieved on 2011-01-31.</li>

<li>Steve Lambert (2006-02-20). <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/steve_forbes_plays_ddt_ban_myt.php" class="external text" title="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/steve_forbes_plays_ddt_ban_myt.php" rel="nofollow">Steve Forbes plays DDT Ban Myth Bingo</a>. Deltoid. Retrieved on 2011-01-31.</li>

</ul>

<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/steve_forbes_plays_ddt_ban_myt.php">http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/steve_forbes_plays_ddt_ban_myt.php</a>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia">Wikipedia</a> also has an article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_Magazine" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_Magazine" rel="nofollow">Forbes Magazine</a>. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL" rel="nofollow">GFDL</a>.

---

<h3 class="storytitle" id="post-5984">Forbes’ rich list of nonsense</h3>

<div class="meta">Filed under:

<li><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/" title="View all posts in Climate Science" rel="category tag">Climate Science</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/reporting-on-climate/" title="View all posts in Reporting on climate" rel="category tag">Reporting on climate</a></li>

</ul>

— group @ 6 January 2011</div>

Guest commentary from Michael Tobis and Scott Mandia with input from Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Kevin Trenberth

While it is no longer surprising, it remains disheartening to see a blistering attack on climate science in the business press where thoughtful reviews of climate policy ought to be appearing. Of course, the underlying strategy is to pretend that no evidence that the climate is changing exists, so any effort to address climate change is a waste of resources.

A recent piece by Larry Bell in Forbes, entitled <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/23/media-climate-change-warming-opinions-contributors-larry-bell_print.html" rel="nofollow">“Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts”</a>, is a classic example.

Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/plimer_does_the_gish_gallop.php">Gish gallop</a> raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on closer examination do no such thing. In real-time debates the number of particularities raised is sure to catch the opponent off guard; this is why challenges to such debates are often raised by enemies of science. Little or no knowledge of a holistic view of any given science is needed to construct such scattershot attacks.

The approach also works somewhat in print, if the references are sufficiently obscure and numerous. Ideally, someone will take the time to answer such an attack, but there is a fundamental asymmetry of forces at work. It is, in fact, easier to form an allegation than to track down a reasonable explanation of what it means and how it really fits in to the balance of evidence. Also, the skills required to reflect the science are deeper than the ones required to attack it; hence the defenders are outnumbered and outgunned. Still, sometimes an article is prominent enough that it merits a detailed response.

The slightly out of the ordinary thing about Bell’s piece is that he casts his attack not as an attack on science (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/03/climate-change-hoax-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html">his usual method</a>) but on the media:

As 2010 draws to a close, do you remember hearing any good news from the mainstream media about climate? Like maybe a headline proclaiming ‘Record Low 2009 and 2010 Cyclonic Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed’? Or ‘NASA Studies Report Oceans Entering New Cooling Phase: Alarmists Fear Climate Science Budgets in Peril’?” he begins.

</blockquote>

But the remainder of the article is true to the form. Bell gallops through all the purported “good news” that the media ignored. The implication is that the media is complicit in overstating the climate change story.

But these aren’t the sorts of observations that most people generally receive from the media. Instead, they present sensational statements and dramatic images that leave lasting impressions of calving glaciers, drowning polar bears and all manner of other man-caused climate calamities.

Many intentionally target impressionable young minds and sensitive big hearts with messages of fear and guilt. Take, for example, a children’s book called The North Pole Was Here, authored by New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin. It warns kids that some day it may be “easier to sail than stand on the North Pole in summer.” Imagine such images through their visualization: How warm it must be to melt that pole way up north. Poor Santa! And Rudolph! Of course it’s mostly their parents’ fault because of the nasty CO2 they produce driving them to school in SUVs.

Lots of grown-ups are sensitive people with big hearts too. Don’t we all deserve more from the seemingly infinite media echo chamber of alarmism than those windy speculations, snow jobs and projections established on theoretical thin ice?

</blockquote>

Whether the enemy is the “mercenary” scientific community, the “power hungry” liberal politicians or the “sensationalist” press matters little. What matters is to suggest the public has been manipulated, before starting the manipulation in earnest. The strategic point is to divert attention from what most scientifically informed people consider the key facts: the climate is changing as a result of human intervention. The longer we delay taking policy action, the more damage we will take and the more an effective policy will cost. It is conceivable and increasingly foreseeable that we will delay long enough that useful policy becomes infeasible and both human civilization and the biosphere will be permanently damaged.

The near-silence of the media on these matters is considered by many to be a key part of the problem. Yet, in this context, Bell suggests we are ignoring “the good news”.

Does he have a point? Is there really much of substance that qualifies as good news justifying his conclusion? The value of his piece depends crucially on how newsworthy his good news was, and how these items fit into the big picture.

We counted eleven assertions of fact in his gallop. Let’s look at each of them and place them in context. Bell especially emphasizes his first two points, so we examine them in detail (quotes from the article are bolded).

Record Low 2009 and 2010 Cyclonic Activity Reported

Bell’s first claim is not a confidence builder.

It’s possible that Bell is referencing a specific metric of hurricane activity (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy">Accumulated Cyclone Energy</a>), but that does not give a full story, nor does it show ‘record lows’. According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ended Dec 31, was one of the busiest on record. In the Atlantic Basin a total of 19 named storms formed – tied with 1887 and 1995 for third highest on record. Of those, 12 became hurricanes – tied with 1969 for second highest on record. Five of those reached major hurricane status of Category 3 or higher. 2010 was just behind 2004 and 2005 for earliest occurrence of a third category 4 hurricane.

It is true that none of the 12 hurricanes made landfall in the US (though tropical storm Hermine made landfall in US and hurricane Karl made land fall in Mexico but caused major flooding in Texas. But the climate system cares nothing for national borders. This may be just a lucky break . Looking in detail <a href="http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/2010-hurricane-season-tropical-storms-0671/">it is attributable to some other features</a> of the prevailing winds last year.

What is certainly untrue is that there was “record low” cyclonic activity in the Atlantic!

What about elsewhere? A tie for the <a href="http://climatesignals.org/2010/06/hurricane-celia-ties-a-record-for-strongest-hurricane/">strongest eastern Pacific hurricane</a> on record (Celia). A category 5 hurricane hitting the Philippines (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Megi_%282010%29">Megi</a>).

Did the press ignore this story? Even on this Bell’s leading point is <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/hurricanes/2010-11-29-hurricanes29_ST_N.htm">dubious</a>. But in the context of climate change, sea surface temperatures continue to increase and strong tropical cyclones continue their upward trend. So Bell leads off with a real clunker.

NASA Studies Report Oceans Entering New Cooling Phase

Bell’s second point, also from the lead paragraph:

According to two separate NASA studies, one conducted by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the other by the Langley Research Center, the oceans now appear to be heading into another natural periodic cooling phase within a typical 55- to 70-year dipolar warm/cool pattern.

</blockquote>

We traced this claim to an internet <a href="http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-baltimore/oceans-are-cooling-according-to-nasa">article by Justin Berk</a> that says:

Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world’s oceans have been losing heat. …

Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, published his first report about the warming oceans. The article Correcting Ocean Cooling published on NASA’s Earth Observatory page this week discussed his and other results. Willis used data from 1993-2003 that showed the warm-up and followed the Global Warming Theory. In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled. He was surprised, and called it a ‘speed bump’ on the way to global warming.

</blockquote>

But the excellent article “<a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/">Correcting Ocean Cooling</a>” which Berk references (and to which Bell is implicitly referring) for this actually explains how Willis went back and found that his earlier report of cooling was erroneous!

So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,” says Willis. The February evening he discovered the mistake, he says, is “burned into my memory.” He was supposed to fly to Colorado that weekend to give a talk on “ocean cooling” to prominent climate researchers. Instead, he’d be talking about how it was all a mistake.”

</blockquote>

Berk is so happy to find the word “cooling” in an article that despite the title “Correcting Ocean Cooling” he doesn’t bother to read or understand the whole point of the article. It’s really a very compelling example of how superficial this kind of journalism is; Berk gets something backwards, Bell picks it up, and Forbes, no less, uses it to lead off an article (albeit an op-ed column).

What’s more, the NASA article itself is from 2008, so even if the press had reported it as news as Larry Bell suggests, it would not have been in 2010. But in fact, the news was that the previous evidence of cooling was erroneous. Bell’s second point is simply wrong as well.

Now that we have some sense of the quality of Bell’s research, we’ll go a little more quickly through most of the other points, saving for last a case where he might have a stronger point.

A special press conference called by IPCC spokesman Kevin Trenberth announced “Experts warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Christopher Landsea, a top U.S. expert on the subject, repeatedly notified the IPCC that no research had been conducted to support that claim–not in the Atlantic basin, or in any other basin.

This famous controversy occurred in 2004 and is not 2010 news. Nor <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29397-2005Jan22.html"> was it ignored by the press</a>. We doubt that Landsea went so far as to claim that “no research had been conducted to support that claim” but if he did he is certainly incorrect. This topic goes back at least to 1987 with a paper in Nature by Kerry Emanuel. Kevin Trenberth offers some salient points about the controversy from his point of view:

<ol>

<li>I was not an IPCC spokesperson and I was not advertised as such. Landsea claimed otherwise.</li>

<li>I did not call the press conference, it was called by Harvard university (Paul Epstein and Jim McCarthy), I participated.</li>

<li>There was a ton of research including my own on changes in the hydrological cycle that were pertinent but not specifically Tropical Storm based, as well as Kerry’s work.</li>

<li>Landsea did not notify IPCC once, let alone repeatedly. He called a press conference and resigned from IPCC but he was not even part of IPCC. He had been asked by me to write something as a contributing author. It was a horrible distortion of many facts.</li>

</ol>

A globally viewed December 2005 BBC feature alarmingly reported that two massive glaciers in eastern Greenland, Kangderlugssuaq and Helheim, were melting, with water “racing to the sea.” … Only 18 months later, and despite slightly warmer temperatures, the melting rate of both glaciers Kangderlugssuaq and Helheim not only slowed down and stopped, but actually reversed.

This again is not 2010 news since it happened in 2007. It is a fact that after a massive retreat from 1991 to 2005 Kangderlugssuaq regained a tiny fraction, less than a tenth, of that retreat by 2007. This may be of interest to glacier dynamicists, but its climatological importance is nil. Glaciers worldwide are in massive retreat. Indeed, <a href="http://bprc.osu.edu/MODIS/?p=61">Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier lost another 5.2 square km in 2009</a>.

[The] ice cap has been accumulating snow growth at a rate of about 2.1 inches per year

The top of the ice caps are growing slightly as expected, since warmer air contains more moisture which will fall in those places as snow. The issue that the public ought to pay attention to is the much larger and accelerating melt at the edge of the ice sheet. This is not especially 2010 news, but in any case it is sleight of hand. The real action is the instability at the edges, which already dominates the accumulation in the interior and looks likely to overwhelm it.

The new sea level, which has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years.

Just wrong:

Figure showing the last 18 years of sea level rise derived from satellites and validated against tide gauges. (Update: longer records available <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#seaLevel">here</a>).

Next:

… if you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there ‘must’ be a focus on global warming.

There are many grants supported by the grant agencies. Some are very broad and some very narrow. While it is possible that some grants specify “global warming”, it is relatively unusual. Currently open climate calls in the US through NSF can be seen at <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?org=GEO&ord=rcnt"> here</a>. The claim simply isn’t true.

The Indian Ocean, for example, was higher between 1900 and 1970 than it has been since.

This is at least a current topic. It probably is based in <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo901.html">Patterns of Indian Ocean sea-level change in a warming climate</a>, Han et al. Nature Geoscience 2010. They conclude that “sea level has decreased substantially in the south tropical Indian Ocean whereas it has increased elsewhere. This pattern is driven by changing surface winds associated with a combined invigoration of the Indian Ocean Hadley and Walker cells, patterns of atmospheric overturning circulation in the north–south and east–west direction, respectively, which is partly attributable to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases.”

So yes, there are apparently parts of the Indian Ocean where sea level has declined. This just leaves <a href="http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib.jpg">more water to pile up elsewhere</a>. In fact, it shows how powerful the forces of climate change already are, in order to be able to outweigh the generally rising ocean volume in a limited area. It is hard to see how this rises to a general interest topic or how it qualifies as “good news” though.

The Northwest Passage has certainly opened up before.

This is untrue in recorded history. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#Later_expeditions">traversals prior to 2007</a> were in very specialized boats and often took years. In 2007 and 2010, genuine shipping lanes opened up for the first time. It was possibly open in the mid-Holocene about 6,000 to 8,000 years ago and was certainly open millions of years ago. But since the opening of the passage itself received far too little attention (in our opinion), it is hard to see what Bell is complaining about.

in February 2009 it was discovered that scientists had previously been underestimating the re-growth of Arctic sea ice by an area larger than the state of California (twice as large as New Zealand)

“Previously” is grossly misleading. This was <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html">an instrumental glitch that lasted a few weeks</a>. And February 2009 was not in 2010 either.

… previous estimates of Greenland and West Antarctica ice melt rate losses may have been exaggerated by double.

We’ve saved this for last because here Bell has a fraction of a point; as far as we can tell the only thing he raises that is 1) current and 2) arguably of general interest and 3) arguably good news. The use of the word “exaggerated” however is malicious and unjustified.

There are a number of ways of estimating the large scale mass balance of the ice sheets. Prominent among them uses information from the GRACE satellite, which measures the gravitational field of the earth. By its nature, the resulting measures are very large scale. They are complemented by precise local measures of ice altitude, for example, which are precise but cannot give broad coverage. To estimate ice cap melting the GRACE results also have to be combined with an estimate of the post-glacial rebound from the last ice age (which is still affecting the mass distribution of the Earth’s crust). Observing a planet is tricky business.

A <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100906085152.htm"> recent publication by Wu et al</a> makes the claim that:

“these [previous] results were not properly corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment, the phenomenon that the Earth’s crust rebounds as a result of the melting of the massive ice caps from the last major Ice Age around 20,000 years ago. These movements of the Earth’s crust have to be incorporated in the calculations, since these vertical movements change the Earth’s mass distribution and therefore also have an influence on the gravitational field.”

There is some contention here. If it proves true, it is an example of science at its best; a sequence of corrections converging on objective truth. The original estimates would have been corrected, pretty much by a factor of two as Bell says.

So this is current, substantially good news, and possibly salient for a general audience. On the other hand it is only good news about bad news; the ice retreat may have been overestimated, but we are still talking about hundreds of billions of tons more ice melting than accumulating every year, and this rate still shows signs of accelerating.

In this case, it is worth noting that all the evidence is that the ice sheets are losing mass and that the loss is accelerating. The Wu et al paper would be simply a recalibration of the net loss. This is good news, but not great news, and is certainly no evidence at all that climate change is negligible.

Please notice how we are trapped in a polemical double bind here.

What the naysayers will do is celebrate every correction that makes matters look less dangerous and criticize every correction that makes matters look more dangerous. In the former case, the older measure will have been “exaggerated”, and “corrected” by some noble and courageous hero. In the latter case, the newer measure is treated as the “exaggeration”. Thus, every single change in the estimate of any quantity is treated as evidence of the grand conspiracy.

What should be celebrated as advances of truth are instead recast either as the bad scary science defeated by the good non-scary science or the other way around. This is especially evident in the clumsy way the Willis tale is told, wherein the casting is confused because one person takes both roles.

So what remains of the criticism Bell raises? Very little indeed! The only unreported good news is that ice cap melting might have been overestimated, though it is still large and probably accelerating. The other ten of his eleven points are essentially nonsensical. I am not being partisan or oppositional here. I examined every point with an open mind and came up with ten points that boil down to complete nonsense and the last one a bit heavy on the spin.

Ultimately, though, the criticism of the press is ludicrous. The naysayers ought to be thrilled at the lack of interest in climate change shown in the press, at least in North America. The longer we delay, the bigger the topic gets, and the more ridiculous the refusal of the press and policy sector to grapple with it becomes.

Yet widely respected publications like Forbes seem eager to promulgate great clouds of rhetorical ink to make the problem seem ever more trivial and distant. If there is good news of general interest, of course it should be reported. But Bell seems to want, instead, to invent it.

</div>

</div>