|
Post by Col 'NDX on Feb 12, 2009 8:44:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 12, 2009 12:25:15 GMT
From Global Warming Censored Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians, Rock Stars and Men-on-the-Street for Science FULL REPORT A study from the Business & Media Institute By Julia A. Seymour amd Dan Gainor So much for that job requirement of balance and objectivity. When it came to global warming the media clearly left out dissent in favor of hype, cute penguins and disastrous predictions.
"They [penguins] are charismatic, endearing and in serious trouble," warned NBC's Anne Thompson on the Dec. 12, 2007, "Nightly News." Thompson didn’t include any disagreement.
While the networks had plenty of time to worry about the future of birds, most network news shows didn’t take much time to include any other point of view even though hundreds of scientists have expressed skepticism of manmade climate change theory.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2009 12:55:08 GMT
The article is not about 'overwhelming evidence' what she is actually saying is that Al Gore, Hansen and the others that froth at the mouth on the various media outlets about global warming climate change have gone over the top to the extent that they are losing the PR battle for the public perception.
You have only to look in the online media now where people are allowed to comment on stories - and the same in comments now from comedians - there is a growing public disbelief in AGW. This disbelief is exacerbated when people suffering cold extremes are told its what to expect with warming or that statistically their area is hotter than last year. This goes down well with someone who lost power in an ice-storm in Kentucky and has still not got it back 3 frigid weeks later.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 12, 2009 19:01:50 GMT
1). People have short attention spans. This doesn't make the science invalid.
2). I have solar power -- when we have storms, I turn on my lights in case someone really has to have electricity and the power is out to everyone (but me).
3). A bazillion scientists could disagree with "climate change" and that has zero to do with the science. Science is not determined by popular vote.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 13, 2009 2:09:21 GMT
1). People have short attention spans. This doesn't make the science invalid. 2). I have solar power -- when we have storms, I turn on my lights in case someone really has to have electricity and the power is out to everyone (but me). 3). A bazillion scientists could disagree with "climate change" and that has zero to do with the science. Science is not determined by popular vote. But if the popular vote goes against a particular issue - the politicians will go that way and funding will stop for that issue regardless of its merits. That has happened with nuclear power of any kind. This is not a popular vote so much as lack of popular support. If you are not funded - you cannot carry out the research it doesn't mean that your ideas are incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 13, 2009 12:05:02 GMT
1). People have short attention spans. This doesn't make the science invalid. 2). I have solar power -- when we have storms, I turn on my lights in case someone really has to have electricity and the power is out to everyone (but me). 3). A bazillion scientists could disagree with "climate change" and that has zero to do with the science. Science is not determined by popular vote. re: no. 3 - But agw apparently IS determined by popular vote - we are constantly reassured it is correct not because of Science but because of *drum roll* CONSENSUS! Which by definition is popular vote. So you're are obviously shifting camp over into the agw is not Science camp...? Also you might note the number of actual scientists (ie. have a degree in related field) who are willing to sign petitions about agw not being good science is in the 10's of thousands while those who think it is 'The truth' number in the mere hundreds & need to bolster their numbers up to 2500 by including accountants, economists & admin assistants. re: No 2 - you either have bullet proof glass or very large calibre guns. I would be most pissed off about a neighbour who, when everyone lost power, deliberately turned ON his lights. What would be your reason for this - build up the hate or just to show innate superiority to the hoi polloi? re: No 1 - people have short attention spans - that doesn't make the news bites into Science. Nor does it turn political advertising into Science. Nor does it make PR into Science. In fact all it DOES make is a case for getting rid of TV advertising. (including those faked up 'news' reports that are actually agenda-driven propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 13, 2009 17:54:36 GMT
re: No 2 - you either have bullet proof glass or very large calibre guns. I would be most pissed off about a neighbour who, when everyone lost power, deliberately turned ON his lights. What would be your reason for this - build up the hate or just to show innate superiority to the hoi polloi? Well, I guess when women do it no one gets upset because when women turn on the lights in neighborhoods without power we usually make friends with all the people because they come over and eat and have coffee and watch TV. Look, I've read the nonsensical claims about all these non-experts who disagree with CO2 based climate change. The test of correctness is peer-reviewed articles and recreation of the work. That's science -- do experiments, collect data, report on the data, validate the work, etc. and do it in an open and reproducible manner. If you don't understand science -- hey, fine by me. But please don't insult me with "Ten bazillion scientists who aren't in the field all want to tell the people in the field they are wrong!"
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 13, 2009 17:57:37 GMT
1). People have short attention spans. This doesn't make the science invalid. 2). I have solar power -- when we have storms, I turn on my lights in case someone really has to have electricity and the power is out to everyone (but me). 3). A bazillion scientists could disagree with "climate change" and that has zero to do with the science. Science is not determined by popular vote. But if the popular vote goes against a particular issue - the politicians will go that way and funding will stop for that issue regardless of its merits. That has happened with nuclear power of any kind. This is not a popular vote so much as lack of popular support. If you are not funded - you cannot carry out the research it doesn't mean that your ideas are incorrect. A lot of very basic science that supports (or not) CO2 based climate change can be done on a very small budget. I do smart grid management research on a shoe-string and I'm pretty good at it and I'm going completely counter to where all the other (much better funded) smart grid folks are going with their work.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 13, 2009 23:10:03 GMT
re: No 2 - you either have bullet proof glass or very large calibre guns. I would be most pissed off about a neighbour who, when everyone lost power, deliberately turned ON his lights. What would be your reason for this - build up the hate or just to show innate superiority to the hoi polloi? Well, I guess when women do it no one gets upset because when women turn on the lights in neighborhoods without power we usually make friends with all the people because they come over and eat and have coffee and watch TV. Look, I've read the nonsensical claims about all these non-experts who disagree with CO2 based climate change. The test of correctness is peer-reviewed articles and recreation of the work. That's science -- do experiments, collect data, report on the data, validate the work, etc. and do it in an open and reproducible manner. If you don't understand science -- hey, fine by me. But please don't insult me with "Ten bazillion scientists who aren't in the field all want to tell the people in the field they are wrong!" well they are hardly non-scientists... 1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs. after all, one of the qualifications for signing is a BS. The list you give of how to do Science would seem to preclude the agw camp of 'scientists' in step one - that whole 'do experiments' thing - are we expected to accept computer models as 'experiments'? i suppose they could be - after all they're experimenting to see how much knowledge & data they can leave out & how many assumptions they can put in and still see if they can get a match to actual weather. The validation seems to be missing with agw as well. Every time they fail in their predictions & even postdictions, they run around changing data & rewriting history to try to make it look like they succeeded. So far the results would appear to be all negative. And you missed a couple of steps in your list - there's come up with an hypothesis, determine how it can be falsified, & maybe, at the end, accept the results. You should try not to feel insulted when people present you with alternative views - it is not good for your health. try to see it as an opportunity to learn & you will prevent considerably stress to your viscera. And you might want to go google the make-up of the IPCC & see how many of the famous 2500 actually had ANY degree in Science, let alone have the qualifications to be 'leading scientists' as they were proclaimed. You are in for a shock. And peer review fails when the reviewers are chosen on the basis of pre-disclosed positions supporting the subject under review. And when the authors are nominated into the review process. That is not Science, nor honest peer review. To corrupt the process this way, THEN turn around & use the process as proof only they are doing science because their opposition is not getting peer reviewed makes a mockery of science & when the man in the street realises it, all science will suffer for it. if you're honestly seeking truth, have a look at Global Warming Censored
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 14, 2009 0:27:05 GMT
Apparently, some people don't believe that science has to be open and aboveboard:
"This week has been dominated by questions of replication and of what standards are required to serve the interests of transparency and/or science (not necessarily the same thing)."--Gavin
Science that is not transparent is mumbo-jumbo.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 14, 2009 0:35:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Feb 14, 2009 22:45:59 GMT
This guy didn't get the message: "It seems the dire warnings about the oncoming devastation wrought by global warming were not dire enough, a top climate scientist warned Saturday. It has been just over a year since the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a landmark report warning of rising sea levels, expanding deserts, more intense storms and the extinction of up to 30 percent of plant and animal species. But recent climate studies suggest that report significantly underestimates the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years, a senior member of the panel warned. "We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected," said Chris Field, who was a coordinating lead author of the report. This is "primarily because developing countries like China and India saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said in a statement ahead of a presentation to the American Association for the Advancement of Science." news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/climate-change-even-worse-than-predicted-expert-20090215-87u5.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 15, 2009 12:38:53 GMT
This guy didn't get the message: "It seems the dire warnings about the oncoming devastation wrought by global warming were not dire enough, a top climate scientist warned Saturday. It has been just over a year since the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a landmark report warning of rising sea levels, expanding deserts, more intense storms and the extinction of up to 30 percent of plant and animal species. But recent climate studies suggest that report significantly underestimates the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years, a senior member of the panel warned. "We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected," said Chris Field, who was a coordinating lead author of the report. This is "primarily because developing countries like China and India saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said in a statement ahead of a presentation to the American Association for the Advancement of Science." news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/climate-change-even-worse-than-predicted-expert-20090215-87u5.html ""We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected"; said Chris Field, who was a coordinating lead author of the report."
Now that is REALLY interesting. So from 2000 - 2007 GHG emissions increased far more rapidly that expected AND at the same time the global temperatures stalled then dropped QED GHG at these levels PREVENT warming !!!
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Feb 15, 2009 13:09:32 GMT
Now that is REALLY interesting. So from 2000 - 2007 GHG emissions increased far more rapidly that expected AND at the same time the global temperatures stalled then dropped QED GHG at these levels PREVENT warming !!! Strange isn't it
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 15, 2009 14:55:11 GMT
Now that is REALLY interesting. So from 2000 - 2007 GHG emissions increased far more rapidly that expected AND at the same time the global temperatures stalled then dropped QED GHG at these levels PREVENT warming !!! Strange isn't it No. Not a surprise to anyone who understands how unimportant co2 levels are in terms of effect on global temperature. Pity the fools.
|
|