[Should Todd Stern be fired for uttering one sentence that doesn't deny reality?]

China Daily carried a report on Wednesday, saying China and the US had achieved nothing substantial at the bilateral climate change talks. But that was not to be, for shortly before boarding the flight back home on Wednesday afternoon, US climate change negotiator Todd Stern told China Daily: "We don't expect China to take a national cap (on greenhouse gas emission) at this stage."

The report in Thursday's edition carried the reaction of US environmentalists, who insisted that Stern's stance was temporary because the Sino-US climate change talks had just begun.

It seems that many American environmentalists and think tanks are not happy with Stern's performance in Beijing. A US source even said: "This kind of language can lead to Stern's resignation".
...
...And can we stop politicizing climate change, and focus on life-and-death questions, because fighting climate change is a matter of life and death?

BBC And Climate: News Before Things Happen? « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

In summary, BBC’s Phil Mercer’s “news” article has likely been pre-packaged with an “informed guess” using activists’ own estimates made long before any demonstration had taken place.

And it has been rushed up to appear as top “Top Story” in the Science & Environment page just in time for Britons to read early on Saturday morning: before any meaningful check about its content could be done. More: before any other major news media thought is meaningful to report about it. Google News, in fact, shows nothing else apart from what already listed above.

———-

Now…by what stretch of imagination can an organization rushing itself forward, with pre-packaged rather than breaking news, present itself as reporting on climate change impartially and without a bias? Were this any other aspect of politics, BBC news could easily be categorized as a political outlet.

Perhaps some Editor over there will have an answer to this…

Wind Watch: The Wind Debate: An expensive job killer

If electricity generated by wind power is competitive with other forms of electricity generation, why does it require such large subsidies? In 2008, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported the following relative subsidies, on a dollar-per-megawatt-hour basis, for 2007: natural gas at 25¢, coal at 44¢, hydro at 67¢, nuclear at $1.59 — and wind at $23.37. And why is the proposed feed-in tariff for wind power in Ontario ($13.5 per kilowatt hour) and related costs at least twice the prevailing price for electricity in the province? If wind power is competitive, why doesn’t the wind industry renounce all subsidies?