Who says the media is biased on climate change?

Here is a textbook example of how the media (in this case Reuters, regurgitated verbatim by News Corp) and agenda-driven climate scientists can spin an optimistic story about the state of the climate into hysterical alarmism.

As I reported here, the Arctic sea ice minimum is up by 500,000 square kilometers over 2008, which itself was up by the same amount on 2007. If you are an impartial observer, such a report should be greeted with thoughtful curiosity, since it appears that the late 20th century warming may indeed be slowing or reversing. Furthermore, you might go on to ask, I wonder what the possible cause of such a slowing or reversing of the temperature trend might be. If you were an impartial climate scientist you may think to yourself:

"Hmm, this data doesn't seem to fit our models. I wonder what is missing from our models that meant we did not predict this increase in sea ice and the cooling of the planet over the last few years? This kind of data is helpful to us because it will allow us to improve our models to better predict the climate in future."

And if you were reporting this story in a balanced media outlet, you might state "Arctic sea ice rises for second year in a row".

However, Reuters, like most of the mainstream media, has an agenda of promoting climate alarmism. We're all going to die unless we slash "carbon" emissions.  So they sit down and think how they can spin this story to fit that agenda. And, after many long hours of consideration, they eventually come up with a headline that screams:

Arctic ice melt third-largest on record

So what does "on record" mean here? That's right, since 1979, which is utterly meaningless in terms of climate, and which doesn't include the 1930s, or any of the other less recent warmings, when there was far less arctic sea ice than today.

And instead of open minded curiosity as to why this has happened, the scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the US, so blinkered by their alarmist agenda, try to explain it away, with caveat after caveat to justify why this growth in sea ice is irrelevant, and that "global warming" is still happening faster than ever. Here are a few examples:

But scientists said they do not consider the slight upward fluctuation again this summer to be a recovery. [Slight upward fluctuation? It's a huge increase over two years. But they can't possibly admit that they may not have a perfect understanding of the climate]

The difference was attributed to relatively cooler temperatures this summer compared with the two previous years. [And that is somehow not relevant? Why were temperatures cooler this summer?]

Winds also tended to disperse the ice pack over a larger region, scientists said. [Ah yes, of course, other factors were responsible. But when winds cause ice to retreat, on the other hand, that's ignored and it's all attributed to "global warming". It's a can't lose situation!]

"The long-term decline in summer extent is expected to continue in future years," the report said. [I think they really hope it does, because otherwise they're going to look pretty foolish]

These so-called scientists have such vested interests that they cannot objectively comment on any data that doesn't fit their agenda, a cardinal sin which should bar them from ever calling themselves scientists again. I genuinely believe that they are so small minded that they actually want the climate catastrophe that their models predict, and all the disastrous consequences that go with it, simply to be proved right.

The Arctic is the "canary in the coalmine" of climate alarmism, and when it doesn't play ball, the spin just gets more brazen.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Of course, the ABC here in Australia cannot resist the temptation either:

Walruses die en masse as Arctic ice melts

Hundreds of dead walruses have been found on Alaska's north-west coast, coinciding with reports that Arctic Sea ice has reached the third lowest level ever recorded.

Some environmentalists in the United States think that is the cause of the deaths. (source)

"Think"? Must be true, then. Quality journalism, as ever, from the ABC.