Readaloo

One of the many crimes that climate scientists have been accused of lately is that they claim absolute certainty in a field of research fraught with uncertainty. Sure, the planet is warming, say skeptics, but that's happened throughout Earth's history, long before humans were burning fossil fuels. So, how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon?

Yet a search through the much vilified Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports shows that absolute certainty is notably absent. In the most recent document, for example, published in 2007, the authors write: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [that is, human-generated greenhouse gas] concentrations."

If that doesn't sound definitive, it's because, as the authors freely admit, it isn't: climate science continues to evolve as new evidence comes in. Indeed, back in 2006, even before the latest IPCC report was complete, researchers in Britain were already planning to launch an update. Helmed by the U.K.'s Met Office (formerly known as the Meteorological Office), the update, published March 5 in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, is based on more than 100 peer-reviewed post-IPCC studies. The new data may shift the evidence for climate change, but none of it weakens what the IPCC said three years ago.

By looking at a wide range of observations from all over the world, the Met Office study concludes that the fingerprint of human influence on climate is stronger than ever. "We can say with a very high significance level that the effects we see in the climate cannot be attributed to any other forcings [factors that push the climate in one direction or another]," says study co-author Gabriele Hegerl of the University of Edinburgh.

Plenty of these climate effects had already been observed at the time of the 2007 IPCC report, including warming temperatures, shifts in rainfall (wet regions getting wetter, dry regions getting drier) and the increase in summer meltback of Arctic sea ice. Those patterns have continued, and in some cases gotten worse.

Some entirely new observations have been recorded as well. In its 2007 report, the IPCC did not include the impact of Greenland's or Antarctica's melting glaciers in its estimate of future sea-level rise, saying it lacked sufficient data. But now the speed-up of flow from these glaciers has been documented. And while the IPCC noted in 2007 that every continent had warmed throughout the 20th century except Antarctica, that continent has now been shown to be warming as well — very likely due to man-made influences, says Hegerl. 

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Again, none of the evidence adds up to absolute certainty, a rare commodity in any field of science. On Wednesday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that an independent panel of scientists, representing national science academies from around the world, would review the IPCC's research procedures — an effort to account for the 2007 report's mistakes, for which the IPCC has come under hard criticism. But while the U.N. group may benefit publicly from more transparency, it won't change the fact that more than 99% of the scientific details in the 2007 report have already withstood the most intense scrutiny. The fact that climate change evidence that was "very likely" a few years ago has now been declared likelier still by the comprehensive Met Office report suggests that the evidence for human-caused climate change is getting better all the time.

Newspapers and traditional media have seen their world and their business models crumble before their very eyes. Newspaper revenues have plummeted by nearly 30% in the last year alone, while newspaper circulation numbers are in the toilet. The web is destroying outdated business models and replacing them with more efficient ones.

These newspaper and media companies aren’t just letting themselves get destroyed, though. Some have gone web-only, some are embracing social media, and then some are blaming Google.

When we first heard that Rupert Murdoch intended to remove News Corp websites from Google, we weren’t impressed. We didn’t understand his plan, but we did believe that it wouldn’t work.

Then This Google Thing Got Out of Hand

That was, until we learned that Microsoft and News Corp are in discussions to remove content from Google and that most recently, other newspapers and media companies are considering joining Murdoch’s insanity.

Let’s think about this: in a few months, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and most of the 56 daily newspapers of MediaNews Group could be de-indexed from Google and Google News(and in News Corp’s case, displayed prominently on Bing.

Experian Hitwise explored yesterday what would happen if this plan comes to fruition. As the following graph demonstrates, Google alone accounts for 20+ percent of newspaper traffic:

Some of that traffic would remain intact (we really doubt Murdoch would remove the homepage of the Wall Street Journal from Google, thus searches for the WSJ in general would remain unaffected), but overall it’d be a devastating traffic blow. Google is still the main method of information discovery online, and that trend will only grow as more kids turn to Google instead of the $0.75 daily.

In short: Rupert’s plan will gut his company and doesn’t set News Corp up for the future.

Rupert, We Understand Your Dilemma

Let’s give News Corp some leeway and a little credit though: they know that the old business models are dying and that they have to do something. Even back in August, we stated that good journalism isn’t cheap and that we have to find a better way to compensate media organizations for their work. Here is what we said about his plan to put his websites behind a paywall, with key points bolded:

“Murdoch has essentially declared that the free-for-all in online news has ended. Specifically, he states that good journalism isn’t cheap (that’s true) and that, while the web has made distribution cheap, it has not made it free. He also hopes to gain more revenue from major celebrity scoops from his tabloid papers (i.e. the Sun). His bet is that people will indeed pay for news content.:

The next paragraph explains our arguments, though:

“We’re not so sure. While we don’t disagree with the need to find additional revenue streams for newspapers and quality journalism, we think there are plenty of alternative news resources to turn to. Murdoch must see something encouraging at the WSJ, because he wouldn’t be going with this plan if he didn’t think they could replicate that model without losing significant readership.”

Sorry Rupert, but newspapers aren’t going to increase anytime soon and up-and-coming blogs and media companies aren’t going away. Maybe we were wrong about you seeing something in the WSJ model. Maybe you just don’t understand how media has been fundamentally altered by the web.

This Isn’t the Future of Media, Murdoch

We’ve had enough. Murdoch’s plan to de-index from Google is getting out of control, and it threatens to speed up the destruction of all traditional media. If other newspapers decide to join this insanity, here’s what will happen: more efficient organizations will step in to fill the gaps. There is no shortage of lean and socially savvy media organizations built in the last five years.

The future of media isn’t in The Wall Street Journal, no matter how much value it provides society. No, the future is in the web, fast-paced blogs, and social media. The future is in companies that realize that news a day old is, well, a day old. The future is in information discovery, not in hiding content.

We know your empire is not doing so well, Murdoch, but that doesn’t excuse you from taking your company down a path that will take you into oblivion. No Microsoft deal will fix the inherent problems with the newspaper business model.

What News Corp should be doing instead: Finding more efficient means of distribution, leveraging its revenue-generating assets, exploring new methods of payments, and encouraging innovation. We’re not psychics or high-profile consultants, but we know which models are winning and which ones are not.

In short, Murdoch, take your ball and go home. Your plan can only hurt News Corp.