The cover of Al Gore's new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, features a satellite image of the globe showing four major hurricanes–results, we're meant to believe, of man-made global warming. All four were photoshopped. Which is nice symbolism, because in a sense the whole hurricane aspect of warming has been photoshopped.

True, both greenhouse gas emissions and levels in the atmosphere are at their highest, but this year had the fewest hurricanes since 1997, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the first time since 2006 no hurricanes even made landfall in the U.S.; indeed hurricane activity is at a 30-year low.

None of which is really all that remarkable. What's remarkable is that the hurricane hysteria essentially reflects a "trend line" comprising a grand total of two data points in one year, 2005. Those data points were named Katrina and Rita.

(…)

For many millions of American homeowners, the 2005 tempest tirade was hardly just academic. Half a year later, a company called Risk Management Solutions (RMS) issued a five-year forecast of hurricane activity predicting U.S. insured hurricane losses would be 40% higher than the historical average. RMS is the world leader in "catastrophe modeling," and insurance companies use those models to set premium rates charged to homeowners as well as by reinsurance companies and others.

With four years of data in, losses are actually running far below historical levels and at less than half the rate that RMS predicted. A lot of individuals and a lot of companies have grossly overpaid.

The global warming scam summit is completely overwhelmed having issued more passes than it can process or accommodate. As a result, delegates and journalists alike have been left out in the cold, literally. Among them was Associated Press science writer and global warming enthusiast Seth Borenstein, the reporter who penned, "Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it."… You can read about it over at NewsBusters.

Photo:  AP

Censorship is the apparently the answer to every inconvenient question.

LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, Borenstein should have pointed out that he is one of the journalists included in the ClimateGate emails (HT:  WattsUpWithThat):

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Given the reporter’s prior relationship and confidence in the ClimateGate scientists, as well as his reporting history in the field, one would think it most inappropriate for Borenstein to set the world straight regarding the relevancy of the current scandal.   Talk about conflict of interest!

There is much more…. consider this:

Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.

There is also this report on media hype:

True to form, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein could not allow himself to include any scientists or peer-reviewed studies countering alarm over the allegedly “melting” Antarctic. Borenstein instead hyped alarm by writing on March 27, “Scientists said they are not concerned about a rise in sea level from the latest event, but say it’s a sign of worsening global warming.” [Note: Borenstein has a long history of incomplete reporting on global warming. See here and here. Also see related links section below for examples of the media's shoddy environmental reporting. In addition, ABC World News Sunday anchor Dan Harris this week produced a low brow smear segment on atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer, a prominent dissenter of man-made climate fears. ABC News violated basic journalistic standards by citing "anonymous" scientists to attack Dr. Singer. See: here, here, here and here. ]

Yet, if only the media would spend a moment to get beyond the hype and alarmism, they would discover that scientists are already thoroughly debunking the media characterization of the “melting” Antarctic.

You should also consider this report from Aug. 2009:

‘Long sad history of AP reporter Seth Borenstein’s woeful global warming reporting’
Media Factsheet: Climate Depot Serving as the Media’s Ombudsman

As part of Climate Depot’s continuing role as the ombudsman of the Fourth Estate, the below is a small sampling of the long sad history of Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein’s woeful global warming reporting: (See also “Related Links” below for sampling of good and bad media climate reporting.)

Of course, Borenstein has a well known history as an alarmist:

In writer Seth Borenstein’s view, climate change is “a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can’t avoid.”

“Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.”

Surely there should have been some caution by the Associated Press before publishing a full exoneration of the ClimateGate scientists by a reporter that had hyped global warming based on information originating from the same set of individuals.

Back in 2007 the American Thinker reported the following:

Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press has written another truly frightening little sci-fi piece entitled Warming Report to Warn of Coming Drought. The article, which claims to have scooped the findings of the IPCC 4th Assessment Working Group 2 (WG2), and predicts a coming eco-apocalypse, has created quite a stir since being published last Saturday. This, despite the fact that the very same author made similar predictions last month regarding the findings of another IPCC group – predictions which proved to be baloney.

On February 1st, the AP published Borenstein’s Working Group 1 (WG1) forecasts under the politically sensational headline Warming Linked to Stronger Hurricanes. This preposterous “leak” claimed that the pending report would place the blame for stronger Atlantic hurricanes “such as Katrina” squarely on the shoulders of man-made global warming. Of course, the very next day revealed an appraisal which made no such broad claims. To the contrary, qualifying footnotes such as these used whenever human contribution was declared “more likely than not,” thereby revealing hypothesis rather than conclusion, were mysteriously absent from the article

Heh.  Where, pray tell, did Borenstein manage to get information from the IPCC?

Is Seth “objective”?  Earlier this year, here’s how he chose to lead one of his prior “journalistic” reports:

WASHINGTON — Rising sea levels, sweltering temperatures, deeper droughts, and heavier downpours _ global warming’s serious effects are already here and getting worse, the Obama administration warned on Tuesday in the grimmest, most urgent language on climate change ever to come out of any White House.

Climate warming-friendly and AGW-supporting reporter Seth Borenstein and friends wrote the piece on Dec. 12 titled, “Climate scientists didn’t fake,” and they make the outlandishly absurd statement that after “an exhaustive review by the Associated Press” they have found that “the e-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data – but the messages do not support claims that the science of global warming was faked.”

However, it turns out that Mr. Bornstein is far too cozy with those very same climate scientists he’s covering to have any credibility whatsoever, and is even included in the email threads.

As a commenter wrote about Borenstein in the Tacoma News-Tribune:

Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.

Given Borenstein’s long, sad, history of woeful global warming reporting, his
numerous conflicts of interest and clear bias, there’s little, if any, reports by Borenstein that can be taken with anything more than a grain of salt. This is especially true in light of the far more credible special investigation by theDaily Mail that addresses the emails and devastates the warmists.

Recommended reading: IPCC and the “Trick”

Related: AP scoop: Statisticians decide – Alarmists right; Deniers wrong

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause “that unless you’re with them, you’re against them,” said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations.’”

Amazing … it is what it is…. They just don’t understand the hidden decline, see anything wrong with destroying source data or knowingly publish results based upon erroneous analysis.  This is ideology driven science that is “driven by cause” and not by data.

“The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy,” writes Canadian journalist Diane Francis, mother of two.

Ahhh, ya, what I meant is that you should adopt China’s draconian and tyrannical human-rights violating one-child force abortion policy.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down — with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

Did those same 56 papers consider the ramifications of ClimateGate? Have they given equal press to articles such as this? What data formed the basis for their call to action? Was it that of the IPCC?