This could go in my fraud blog, but as a work in progress rather than a lesson of any type is fine to go in here.
In the last two years, in amongst the speculative and inductive studies repeated endlessly by all known media, two massive studies surfaced, one well over a year ago by none less than part of the Japanese government, whose sole satellite measuring CO2 worldwide had released its findings, and unlike the expectations showed the more populated an area was generally the more CO2 it absorbed, while emissions came from deserts and forests. Now the mechanisms behind this can be left to the scientists, but the findings were so drastic you'd think the media ought to have mentioned them as they pretty well changed the game. 18 months later there is a sole report tucked away online if you look hard enough. Otherwise the Japanese Ibuki satellite findings remain a very badly publicised elephant. If David Copperfield can hide the Statue of Liberty the papers can hide an elephant like this very easily.
Now this week possibly the best news of 2013 and maybe even the 21st century altogether was released. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem put together the largest known collection of parameters and found little or no evidence of man made warming. The world isn't going to burn or the oceans boil, it's not happening. Music to the ears of every single citizen of the world, as even if you don't believe it if it was happening everyone would have been affected. But it isn't. OK, this was only yesterday, but although a few websites have picked this one up if it's not in the papers by Monday it never will be.
Now this is interesting, as last year when the Berkeley University BEST study reran the Michael Mann hockey stick using solely temperature records (the same ones I think) amazingly they came up with the same results, and within a femtosecond The Guardian and BBC were giving it more welly than a royal wedding. Add to that a final paragraph added (paraphrasing) 'But there is a possibility this may be due to natural causes such as the multidecadal oscillation'. The major difference between law and science (or journalism) is the attention to detail. Lawyers write such long contracts as every word (let alone paragraph) counts. Therefore by missing a paragraph anyone reading would use to neutralise the remainder of the article (like the Wayne's World style addition of 'Not' after a claim) the media have added subterfuge to irrelevance. Just like a chancellor announcing new giveaways in the budget he actually gave away months earlier (standard PR methods), using someone else's material to run an equation and find the same result they did is simply putting garbage in and getting it out again. But merit or not, the media picked this up like a naked photo of Al Gore (or would they?) and cut the ugly foreskin off which would have otherwise ruined the picture.
So we have a far greater piece of evidence here by combining the three phenomena (four if you include the partial reporting of BEST).
A physical measurement demonstrates populated countries do not emit CO2
A study (possibly the largest of its kind) concludes there is no anthropogenic sign of warming
A team recheck someone else's data and find it is what it was, except it may not be.
Which gets the coverage?
And the main question is actually 'Why?'.
When people work out the why, then they will no longer rely on the media to tell them such vital material, but do their own investigation now we have it all available on the internet. If newspapers want to become redundant, this is the quickest way to make it happen.
There will always be people who don't believe words alone so here are the links:
Full climate analysis
Believe me, you won't need my help for the BEST material, but it was included in the second study and made absolutely zero impact. That's called 'discrediting' I think in science, or superseding at the least.