Two Most Amazing Feats of Mass Media Bias?

1) Convincing a large percentage of the public that human-caused climate change is not happening.

Different polls find different percentages, but they all seem to show that a large portion, if not a majority, of US citizens think climate change is not being caused by human activity (carbon dioxide emissions).

However, in peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011, of papers that expressed a position on the issue, over 97% said climate change is occurring due to human activity.

And, as Vice reports, from 2012 to 2013, that percentage rose to 99.99:

2) Downplaying the role of the Saudi Arabian regime in the 9/11/01 attacks and overall global terror, and the USA’s ongoing sponsorship of and collaboration with the Saudi regime.  

Obama today continues Bush Jr.’s strict suppression of 28 pages of the congressional report which, according to a senator who has read the pages, “point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier” of the 9/11/01 attack.  Other members of congress who have read the 28 pages say they are “shocking”.

In addition to Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in the 9/11/01 attack, a 2009 US cable signed by Hillary Clinton and leaked by Wikileaks documents the US saying that Saudi Arabia is the most “significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” including al Qaeda and the Taliban, which the US, after installing, has for more than a decade been sending its young people to fight against.

With all of the above knowledge, in 2010 Obama made the decision to send Saudi Arabia the biggest shipment of lethal weapons the US has ever sent anyone, ever.  The shipment included hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cluster bombs, which have been condemned by the international community, though not the US (which continues not only to sell but use them: A week after being awarded the Western prize for peace – a prize tellingly named after a weapons-manufacturer and the the inventor of dynamite, Alfred Nobel – Obama planted and detonated a cluster bomb in a crowded farmer’s market, killing 41 people including 21 children and 16 women, five of them pregnant.)

Saudi Arabia has been a major US client since the 1930s, around the time Saudi oil was discovered.

US media is almost entirely owned by six global conglomerates that are constantly working to expand their international control of markets, labor, and raw materials.  These conglomerates use their information systems to foster an environment in which 1) people can largely deny human-caused climate change, which is a consequence of various industrial practices and 2) people remain passive and submissive when their own government increases its support for a regime that played perhaps the chief role in an attack that killed 3,000 US citizens, is the world’s biggest sponsor of groups with which the US claims to be “at war”, and controls raw materials US government planners have referred to as the greatest prize in history, and which contribute towards human-caused climate change.

Robert Barsocchini focuses on global force dynamics and writes professionally for the film industry.  He is a regular contributor to  Washington’s Blog, and is published in Counter Currents, Global Research, State of Globe, Blacklisted News,,, Information Clearing House, Press TV, and other outlets.  Also see: Hillary Clinton’s Record of Support for War and other Depravities.  Follow Robert and his UK-based colleague, Dean Robinson, on Twitter.

This entry was posted in General, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • ShankyS

    cLIEmate change. No way the sun or space weather are involved. That would be impossible. Wait! The planet is cooling and not warming? Libtard bs wanna be tree huggers lie to get their funding and carbon credits. Now, I’m all about cleaning this planet up and taking care of it, but living or serving a PROVEN lie should not make the agenda. Global warming scientists shoul all be discredited.

    • Robert Barsocchini

      What is the motivation for essentially all scientific researches in the field to say climate change is human caused? Are they conspiring together to trick us? If that’s what they are doing, couldn’t they make a lot more money by lying in favor of oil companies, etc.?

      • clarioncaller

        Climate researchers are reporting that climate change is human-caused. They can continue to state this because humans, in the employment of government and corporate conglomerates are artificially engineering the atmosphere vis-a-vis HAARP and aerosol spraying [chemtrails]. We see the extreme weather changes and are led to assume that we are responsible. It is a total Psyop.

  • kimyo

    it’s not just u.s. media which has failed to convince citizens that global warming is enemy #1, australians and germans both poll similarly to americans.

    so, either you have to up your game and provide some truly convincing material (ie: not 97%, cause that’s a religious argument, not a scientific one and obviously it’s not working anyway), or you’re going to have to rely on the stupidity of americans (© gruber) to force thru your climate initiatives ala obamacare.

    here’s my question: how will you know you’re building a sustainable city? do you have an example we can use as a model? blueprints? can you run a city without putting down 300,000 tons of salt in the winter (like nyc did last year)? if you think you can retrofit nyc to be green, then prove it – show me a sustainability success story implemented in a smaller city

    many of the initiatives put forth so far are green in name only. i always get a kick out of reading how the local dry cleaner is now using ‘green technology’. if you consider it from cradle to grave, a prius is green in name only. unfortunately, as currently attached to the grid, wind is green in name only (increased natgas generation is required as backup for low or extreme wind conditions. in fact, some turbines require grid electricity when they’re not in use)

    are there any experts who have actually designed then built a sustainable city? what are their names? what level of population growth should we be aiming for?

    recall, please, that government can make things worse (ie: obamacare). putting obama or clinton or romney or pataki in charge of defining what is green is probably going to result in increased carbon emissions (ex: by building up nuclear capacity)

    • Robert Barsocchini

      It’s over 97%, and there is a link there to the Institute of Physics, which conducted the study.

      The even newer data is 99.99 percent, also with links to explanations.

      These are only religious arguments (if by that you mean arguments that must be taken on faith) if you do no further research into them. The information is there and people would love for you to read it.

      As for how to build a sustainable city? There were people and cities on the American continents for maybe 70,000 years before Europeans arrived.

      But as for an easier question, how to reduce carbon emissions, first you can go vegan and reduce your own carbon “footprint” by half 🙂

      • kimyo

        i have examined the 97% claim and found it wanting (for instance, irregularities in the execution of criteria for the inclusion/exclusion of papers).

        we’ve had the cattle/vegan conversation before, i continue to maintain that rampant non-cafo deployment of cattle across the country will be beneficial to the earth, as it was 70,000 years ago. that, with the accompanying forest land, was the natural state of things back then. deploying cattle brings forests back and restores the land.

        please interview judith curry. i guess she’s that 00.01 percent holdout. see if you find her credible. or listen to the podcast linked here.

        if we were talking economics, i think you’d be fairly skeptical of the krugman/princeton nobel prize crowd. economics is a religion, not a science. serious beards in funny hats and robes, running our country into the ground, traveling to japan to help them destroy their economy as well.

        if we were talking medicine, i think you’d be at least a bit skeptical of the peer-reviewed claims of vaccine safety, especially given the recent revelations of fraudulent data manipulation to hide a possible link to autism reported on these pages.

        there was a time when peer-review / ivy league schools resulted in better science/scientists. that time is over.

        the carbon debate deserves to be examined from both sides, if only so that you can best rebut the skeptic’s inconvenient questions.

        • Robert Barsocchini

          Oh, yeah, I remember!

          • PB

            You sound like a man with a job to do Robert.

  • Tim Groves

    The 97% consensus paper has been roundly debunked, here:

    The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
    The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

    And here:

    Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading; fails to mention they found more papers rejecting AGW than say humans are primarily responsible. Cooking the books: John Cook’s new survey is not only meaningless, but is also highly misleading because it fails to mention that they found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily responsible! Only 65 out of a total of 12,271 abstracts endorsed the position that man is primarily responsible for climate change. That would indicate a 0.5% non-consensus on man-made global warming.

    And here:

    Cook’s 97% consensus is a case study of Agnotology – ignorance and misinformation
    Agnotology is the study of how ignorance grows through repetition of misleading misinformation. You might never have heard of it, but it’s the perfect term for the climate science “debate”. Predictably its use began when those convinced of man-man global warming claimed fossil fuel groups were funding misinformation. But as per usual, unskeptical scientists opened a promising new front only to got burned by the evidence.
    In the latest volley, from Legates et al 2013, John Cook’s “97% consensus” survey has become the case study in agnotology. Based on incorrect results, a flawed method, and a logical fallacy, it kept key facts hidden while sloppily blending vague language into a form that is easily and actively misinterpreted. That it passed peer-review is another damning indictment of peer review.
    Cook still refuses to provide about half the data, but the data that has been made public shows (after some digging) that a mere 41 papers out of 12,000 was called a 97% consensus. The trick is that Cook et al interchangeably use different definitions of consensus.

    Also, please read this piece “The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up”by Richard Tol all the way through. It cuts to the heart of the matter:

    Of course, if you google, you can find lots of posts attempting to debunk the debunkers, and yet more attempting to debunk the debunking of the debunkers. But if you are unbiased and persevering, I have no doubt you will eventually reach the conclusion that Cook’s “97%” paper is a piece of junk science written purely for propaganda purposes. And if you can’t reach this conclusion, you haven’t been paying enough attention.

    As for 9/11, surely we all know by now that the media has been lying about that since the day it happened. What the Saudi’s role in the caper was is anyone’s guess. A full investigation – with full waterboarding powers – conducted by a neutral, independent and just authority, would get to the bottom of everything. Let me know if you ever discover such an authority. I seriously doubt their existence.

    • Robert Barsocchini

      Three distinct studies using four different methods have independently shown that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is 97 ± 1%. The result is the same whether we ask the experts’ opinions, look at their public reports and statements, or examine their peer-reviewed science. Even studies that quibble about the precise percentage have accidentally reinforced the 97 ± 1% consensus.

      The evidence is crystal clear that humans are the main cause of the current global warming, and the expert consensus reflects the strength of that body of evidence. It’s not easy to convince 97% of scientific experts about anything – that requires some powerful scientific evidence.

      And yet public opinion is a very different story. Americans think experts are evenly split on the causes of global warming. The public is likewise split on the cause of global warming, with just over half understanding that humans are primarily responsible. As a result, Americans don’t see global warming as an urgent issue, putting climate policy low on the list of priorities.

      “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

      These are the words of economist and Global Warming Policy Foundation advisor Richard Tol in a new paper published in Energy Policy. Despite accepting that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real and correct, Tol has nevertheless spent the past year trying to critique the study my colleagues and I published last year, finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

      The crux of Tol’s paper is that he would have conducted a survey of the climate literature in a slightly different way than our approach. He’s certainly welcome to do just that – as soon as we published our paper, we also launched a webpage to make it as easy as possible for anyone to read the same scientific abstracts that we looked at and test the consensus for themselves.

      Tol chose instead to look for faults in our study’s methods in what he described as a “destructive” approach. Ultimately he concluded that because those who were categorizing the abstracts based on their position on the cause of global warming were human, our ratings were imperfect (this is certainly true), and that accounting for these imperfections brings the consensus value down to about 91%. That’s where Tol made his big mistake.

  • Parzival
  • Science has never been advanced by consensus. In fact, contrarian views are what has always brought out scientific advances.

    Not to mention, appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

    The proponents of climate change rely on 2 logical fallacies. Appeal to majority and appeal to authority.

    Science is suppose to rely on data. The data does not fit their climate change model.

    CO2 lags warming.


    Global temperatures are falling.

    We don’t even know if that data is any good in the first place because of the a priori assumption that temperature reading used for the models is representative of earth as a whole.

    The earth’s surface area is 196.9 million sq miles. All the thermometers ever manufactured by mankind don’t amount to a square mile of surface area.

    Even we did have data for a sq mile of earth that would be a signal to noise of 1 to 195,000,000.
    Not conclusion can be drawn from such a weak sampling.

  • Paul Revere Now

    Problem with Americans is when we see sedition and traitors like Bush covering up national security they are not held accountable. Why is that? Because they know we the Americans are WHIMPS when it comes to following through doing what we must to traitors. In other words, this was all planned just like the Kennedy assassination. The Bushes are not true Americans they are puppets. It is these sort of domestic enemies that America has been putting up with for a very long time. They want America to be what they see it like not what our Founding Fathers said it should be under GOD through Jesus Christ. Very very deceitful family getting what they want for the New World Order which is under Satan. With Saudi Arabia all those whom sold their souls for money should be made an example of. Meaning? Anyone ….and I mean ANYONE taking bribes, money or whatever from another country should be arrested and SHOT for an example to future elected officials and I do not care how many need to be shot ….there needs to be an example not to do this. And then …guess what, we would not have the problems we face today. That’s all it takes.

  • Jonah Jay

    Saudi Arabia may certainly have had a hand in the 9/11 false flag attack and financial funding of the hoax that is the war on terror. What of Israel? Why the sudden influx of articles on Saudi Arabia? Perhaps because the Saudi Royal family is the designated fall guy to take the heat of Anglo-American-Israeli nexus as it desperately tries to gain some leverage.

    It’s a global warming / cooling cycle. The real science consistently shows this. But since the IPCC and other bodies are riddled with eco-activists who are led by their emotions and bias; the C02 /carbon credit nonsense, and where differing points of view are seen as “climate deniers” I don’t think there’s much hope for reasoned debate anytime soon. Science is fairly corrupted across the board after all…

    And climate science is no different.

  • June 24, 2014 The Scandal Of Fiddled Global Warming Data

    When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).