‘Egghead,’ Political Brawl and Quarrel Factors in Reporting on Climate | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

Sinclair, who in his blog and videos cleverly juxtaposes scientific findings against those denying climate change as a problem, said he started doing climate change videos to help scientists. “I realized that scientists were absolutely getting slaughtered on the internet. And the reason, I think, was because they did not know how to speak the language that the internet speaks. The internet is this sort of scorning, subconscious, paranoid thing that we’re still trying to get our arms around,” Sinclair said.
...
“With energy, we’re looking at solutions on long timeframes, 20, 30 years,” Hayhoe said. “If we go 30 years with no climate policy, with carbon emissions unchecked, we will be facing a world that is very radically different from the world that we live in today, with very serious consequences for the U.S. and abroad.”

Frontline’s ‘Climate of Doubt’ — Enough Time for ‘Skeptics’ to Self-Destruct? | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

The question for some is whether the program and correspondent John Hockenberry set out — or ended up — giving his subjects enough rope to figuratively hang themselves. And whether, in the eyes and minds of viewers, they then did so.
...
“There are holdouts among the urban bi-coastal elite,” the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ebell tells Hockenberry when asked about public attitudes on climate change. “But I think we’ve won the debate with the American people in the heartland, the people who get their hands dirty, people who dig up stuff, grow stuff, and make stuff for a living, people who have a closer relationship to tangible reality, to stuff.”

Critique of PBS Frontline’s ‘Climate of Doubt’ Program

[Tom Harris] There are many serious, and obvious, biases in the program. Did anyone else note how they allowed alarmists to answer skeptics’ claims, but never vice versa? Or how about all the info about skeptics’ funding sources but nothing about the thousand times more funding of alarmists? Or the assertion that the purpose of the skeptics’ funding was “to confuse the issue” (the science is confusing and the skeptics are right to point that out). Or the sneaky analogies to tobacco, which has nothing to do with the issue. Or silly statements like “the scientific community says”. Or the bogus 97% consensus issue. Etc., Etc. What a disgrace, PBS.