The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The science of reporting climate change > Comments

The science of reporting climate change : Comments

By Brian McNair, published 8/4/2011

Indeed, there’s a problem with media coverage of science in general, which arises from the very nature of news, and the heightened obligation on all public actors, including scientists, to manage news.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Public opinion is clearly informed and influenced by what is reported in the media. I doubt anyone could argue with that.

Ross Garnaut's public utterances are not easily digestible and frankly his educated form of speech is probably not helping. But that's not his fault, I don't think he was engaged for his public speaking skills, he just seems to be the poor bugger rolled out time and again to explain it all to punters.

I watched Insight on SBS last night with a mixture of bewilderment and dismay. The way in which the audience was panned as Ross G spoke made me wonder if the director of the show was a skeptic themselves.

I have heard and seen no-one in the public debate so far who has been able to articulate meaningfully (i) why it is a good idea for Australia to engage in an ETS and (ii) how the impact of this economy wide cost increase will be felt by low, middle and high income Australians. Bland reassurances about compensation are meaningless and just tend to reinforce the sense of cynicism I see in the faces of skeptics.

Copious modelling and other detailed information apparently exists but I see no-one out there with the tools to explain it at the level of understanding most of us are stuck with.

I don't doubt global climate change (warming, cooling, who knows) is directly linked to our activities, I also don't doubt there is a need to make economy wide changes to reduce this impact - carrots, sticks etc. - but I see and read nothing that is pitched at helping the average punter make the connection and embrace the thing.

It's one thing to be right, it's quite another to convince the populace of this fact. What's Hawkie up to nowadays, maybe we need the great communicator on the case?
Posted by bitey, Friday, 8 April 2011 9:38:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a journalist who occasionally gets to write about the science, I have some idea about how the media side works and if Prof McNair wants an excellent example of the interaction between experts and media he should look at the Millenium Bug scare of a decade back.

This had a very similar anatomy to the present global warming story in that the experts were all convinced that the switch to 00 on the date clock in computers would result in world-wide calamity. They would get angry with a few mavericks who claimed that the problem was non-existent. The media faithfully reported the mainstream, with occasional reference to the mavericks.

Come the day, of course, and major companies that ignored the scare story travelled just as well as those who spent billions fixing the "problem".

So in retrospect what should the media have done? How could it have worked out that the mavericks were right and the experts talking total nonsense? The answer is that the media naturally gravitates to the worst case scenario, which makes for better headlines, and the experts themselves are influenced by what they can get into media. The more attention the scientists can get the more likely they are to get funding, get into positions of influence and so on.

Rather than wring his hands over how the media isn't getting the message right, Brian should look at the subtle interaction between the media and the expert communities giving out that message.

The sad part is that one day one of these scare stories might actually be right and we'll be caught unawares because of all the nonsense that has gone before it. Is climate change a scare story that is right? I very strongly doubt it but then, hey, I'm not an expert looking for funding.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 8 April 2011 11:37:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone wishing to become better informed about anthropogenic global warming, should treat the media's managed view (particularly the asserted views of the ABC, SBS and Fairfax Press ) with great suspicion, and instead read the recent well-written science-based books of two Australians, Robert Carter and Mark Lawson, namely:

Robert M Carter, "Climate: the Counter Consensus", 2010, published by Stacey International;

Mark Lawson, "A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy", 2010, published by Connor Court.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 8 April 2011 11:53:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian, we have previously discussed at length on OLO, some of the components of the “advocacy block”. Within this block we have identified, informal political advocates, media advocacy, academia, advocacy science, celebrity advocacy, public advocacy, commercial opportunist advocacy and NGO advocacy.

We have also discussed the “organic” nature of this block and its capacity to react tactically in response to threats or challenges.

Whilst much of your critique of the media’s role is reasonable, it completely ignores the issue of the media’s membership of the wider advocacy block and why it should have such a partisan position.

There are some fine words from you as to what needs to be done. Then you expect us to embrace your sincerity as you declare “In the short term, though – and the science is clear on this – the world IS warming.”

What are we to make of this? You are, as a professor of journalism at QUT, responsible for the production of journalists, there is an acknowledged problem with journalism, so journalism is part of the problem and that by your own statement, you are a partisan advocate in relation to that which you criticize?

Pardon me for asking but, is the ambiguity still in the box?

This is a very disappointing and contradictory article as you have placed yourself in both the academic and media advocacy blocks.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 8 April 2011 12:04:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom - tnks for the books, Mark Lawson
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 8 April 2011 2:09:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom (re :the science of reporting climate change)

You left out Plimer's 'Heaven & Earth' published by the same house as Lawson's.

Could this be perhaps why?

Professor Harry Clarke:
http://www.harryrclarke.com/2009/05/09/more-on-plimer/
.

Professor Michael Ashley
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147
.

Professor Malcolm Walter
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm
.

Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm
.

Professor David Karoly
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm
.

Professor Bob Ward
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6804961.ece
.

Professor Ian Enting details why the book doesn't pass muster within the scientific community
.

http://tinyurl.com/Plimers-Downfall
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 8 April 2011 4:01:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would think science reporting in online sites is adequate.

Here are a few Australian science online sites, and they covver a variety of topics and areas of science.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/

http://theconversation.edu.au/pages/technology

When reading the articles from these sites, the issue becomes “how to separate the wheat from the chaff”, and what should be given a priority.

EG

“Keeping endangered species SAFE” or “Dinosaurs tormented by lice”

There is also a long road to travel from discovering something, to making it legislation, with so many politicians taking little interest or having little knowledge of science.

There is also the problem of the education system, and attempts to eliminate science and maths out of education (too male).

There also is a problem with data from so-called Australian universities, that is becoming less reliable in time.

So I don’t think science reporting is the main problem, but other issues.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 8 April 2011 5:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot - the reason there is a lot about Plimer's book is because scientists can apparently pick problems with it.. I didn't get Plimer's publicity (with my book as Mark Lawson) because activists (who include some scientists) couldn't think of any easy way to attack it. So they ignored it.

If you're interested in the skeptical literature, there is now a host of it on Amazon. Another local science author who was paid the complement of being ignored by activists is Garth W. Paltridge, an atmospheric physicist and former director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, among other posts. He wrote The Climate Caper (Connor Court, 2009). On the policy side, and cataloguing some bizarre behaviour on the part of environmental scientists is a professor and head of the school of government at the University of Tasmania, Aynsley Kellow. He wrote Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science (Edward Elgar, 2007). Edward Elgar is an english publisher.

Again you won't have heard much about the book because our many concerned scientists couldn't think of any handy way to counter it. This sort of science is about politics after all, and you can't be seen to be acknowledging any truth in the opposition's statements.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 8 April 2011 5:56:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with the reporting of climate change is the idiotic notion that the scientist really know what is going on. I watched Ms Gillards Climate change panel last night and realised that a two year old could see through the spin and deceit. They tried to speak with such authority but with only alarmist spin behind them came across atrociously. The panel was an embarassment to true science as found by the contempt shown to scientist asking sensible questions and making intelligent comments. The cost of these professional salesman must be ernormous. Its a pity the money was not going to clean up the environment.
Posted by runner, Friday, 8 April 2011 6:09:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, I'm sure that's it Mark.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Plimer has a media profile and postgraduate scientific qualifications at all.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 8 April 2011 7:38:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon (Mark Lawson)

I tried to find a serious review (not a promo) of your book – I couldn’t find any. Ok, you want to blow your own trumpet on OLO tantamount to Kath & Kim’s “look at me, look at me” – go right ahead, you do have a chorus of OLO followers to impress.

No Mark, the reason there’s a lot about “Heaven & Earth - Global Warming, the Missing Science” is because Plimer (being a highly credentialed and profiled real scientist) claimed his book to be a ‘scientific work’ whilst so many of his scientific colleagues panned it. Sorry mate - Bugsy’s spot on, you don’t rate.

It would have been different if Plimer had corrected all the significant errors and deliberate distortions after they were pointed out to him (by experts in respective fields that he so alienated) prior to subsequent print runs. He deliberately chose not to.

Why? Because his so called ‘scientific work’ was being thumped as a ‘bible’ by his acolytes in the church of denial. Sheesh, he even embarked on a travelling road-show with the great ‘lord’ himself, Christopher Monckton – preaching, selling and signing ‘the bible’ from the boot of his car like any true bible-belt evangelist. Yep, his looming retirement being funded by the tithing of the throngs - a nest egg any author would pray for.

Don’t get me wrong Mark, I am interested in sceptical science – all scientists are. But sceptical literature, as in a book like Plimer’s? Nope, I’ve read it – it deserves to be catalogued as ‘how to preach to the scientific illiterate’. It seems Connor Court is on a winner though; publish all politico/sceptico books for the maddening crowd. I recommend you don’t give up your day job at the AFR, although your ‘science writing’ there seems to be very very thin.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 9 April 2011 10:32:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot
You appear to be under the false impression that your name-calling is relevant to the question whether we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve.

It isn't. Logical fallacies are not much of an advertisement of your scientific credentials, is it?

1. Perhaps you can explain how science supplies the value judgments for AGW policy.
2. Also, could you explain how you know that diverting production to less productive uses on a global scale, while the world has food shortages, will not result in killing people?
3. If it did, how would you know about it? How have you taken it into account? Show your workings.
4. Got that real-world evidence of catastrohpic man-made global warming yet? Still waiting - no, not wodges of statistics (history) and computer models (guesses); not appeal to an empire of government funded vested interests, not ASSUMING it. Just show us the proof or stop your snivelling.
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 9 April 2011 12:22:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, Peter Hume ... such hypocrisy as I have come to expect from you.

So it's ok for people of your ilk to "name call" Mark Lawson, Bob Carter, Garth Paltridge, Aynsley Kellow, et al?

And it's not ok for me to take them to task when they (in)conveniently leave out their newfound 'messiah'.

I understand why you bait and switch, Peter ... it's a common tactic you employ here.

However, you already have my views on YOUR "catastrophic man-made global warming" meme.

As to logical fallacies, yes ... you are.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 9 April 2011 1:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume,

I really hope you can go and live on another planet - because your kind of logic we can well do without.

"Give is the proof, give us the proof!" Do you expect us to believe that you could understand the proof it was presented to you on a silver platter? Get Real.

You fall into the category of a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic - of anything and everything! Flat Earth, creation 6,000 years ago, moon-landing's a myth - you probably believe it all. (Or, take the counter-view when it suits you.) Next, you'll be asking us to prove God exists!

Undoubtedly the science of climate, and any change therein, is complex. There are competing views - understandably so!

But, it is up to policy makers to seek properly informed advice, both on the nature of an impending or potential problem, and on possible action to avert or minimise potential impacts. The question we face is i) whether our pollies are getting the best possible advice, ii) whether they would listen to that advice or just go on following faceless ignoramuses, iii) whether the public is being correctly and adequately informed - so they may support the correct advice on both problem and solution.

Prof McNair is right, because the 'real' science says so - not the spin-doctors, not the counter-skeptics, not the BS artists.

Curmudgeon,
"This sort of science is about politics after all..."

For you, maybe. Not it at all! This is all about science, environment, and life as we know it. So, don't demean it, please.

runner,

Haven't you realised Ms G is all about votes, by whatever it takes.
She and her panel wouldn't know science if it bit them.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 9 April 2011 1:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot
More name-calling, ho hum.

In years of this debate, I haven’t yet seen any real-world evidence of the problem, nor have I seen any justification of policy. All I’ve seen is what you have just displayed: a starting position assuming the problem and solution without real-world evidence, relying on authority, orthodoxy and groupthink, and meeting any question with more of the same, plus furious abuse.

Hypocrisy means not practising what you preach. But since you haven’t yet got to the stage of establishing a problem, or a solution, therefore I’m not preaching anything except that those asserting should prove it without reliance on logical fallacies like begging the question.

By contrast, my asking for real-world evidence is not any kind of "logical fallacy".

For all I know there may be good evidence of AGW. Mine is skepticism - the REAL scientific approach. Yours is credulity - the religious approach.

So prove it. No assuming it, no statistical manipulations that assume it, no link wars, no appeal to absent authority, no guesses, no personal abuse, no attribution of bad faith. Just prove it with real-world evidence.

Whereas my argument doesn’t depend on name-calling, ultimately all objections to AGW policy resolve to name-calling. It's the actual foundation of your entire argument. The difference between your and my personal argumentation is this: any name-calling *I* do is *decoration* – *yours* is your *structural members*!

Saltpetre
Your last post proves only that the case for AGW boils down to:
1. “It must be so, because the government tells me so.”
2. “It is not for mere mundanes to question the superior wisdom of their overlords who do and should decide whose property, freedom, livelihood, or life to destroy”.

And you’re telling me to get real?

Come on, seriously, you guys.

PROVE IT.

Either supply real-world evidence of catastrophic global warming justifying policy action, including an account of the lives and property destroyed, or do the intellectually honest thing, and either admit you don’t have a case.

Enough evasion. Any reply other than proving it = total and utter admission of defeat.
Posted by Peter Hume, Saturday, 9 April 2011 6:02:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
New developments: after having their 'gatekeepers' sacked from Wikipedia, the alarmists are going after WattsUpWithThat and (unsuccessfully) attacking James Delingpole. Having failed to win the debate, they are trying to stifle it:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/another-wikipedia-editor-has-been-climate-topic-banned/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/facebook-treating-skeptic-blog-articles-as-abusive/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/james-delingpole-beats-a-press-complaint-from-uea/
Posted by Jon J, Sunday, 10 April 2011 7:56:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted. Excessive use of capitals.]
Posted by TRUEEE, Sunday, 10 April 2011 11:12:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Truee
(No need to shout.)

Half of that was well said. The other half was precisely back-to-front.

"Firstly with privatisation of our utilities make them truely privatised by allowing the end users to seperate from the grid to become self sufficent this will see the growth in green energy 10 fold solar the power and water cartels would hate that."

Well said. For example, where I live it would never have been economical to connect to mains power in the first place. In the absence of public subsidisation, alternative forms of energy would have become more economical and would now be available. What stopped them? The idea that everyone has a "right" to receive electricity, no matter how uneconomical it was to supply it. This idea is what killed the development of alternatives energy, including low-carbon, solar, wind and all the rest of it, that were all made non-viable, suffocated under subsidisation, because how can people compete with freebies handed out by politicians backed up by police to kill any competition?

But it is not correct that the problem was the almighty dollar. Providing energy at a loss, in other words, using more resources per unit of output, is *not* better for the environment, it's worse. If all energy was supplied by way of nationalisation, the result would be less energy at a greater cost to the environment and society.

Only the instruments of profit and loss can tell which is the more economical way of doing things.

The problem was precisely that the instruments of profit and loss were forcibly displaced by government monopolies. Instead, governments, following the socialist fashion of the early 20th century, decided that only they had the wisdom and capacity to provide electricity, even though
a) there was no reason why this should have been a public, rather than a private problem in the first place, and
b) governments now are agreed that their choice of energy was the worst mistake in the history of the whole world.
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 10 April 2011 12:05:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume,
There are many ways to save electricity.

http://www.redenergy.com.au/page.html?saving-energy
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/

Unfortunately, I think there is a noticeable disinterest in saving electricity.

Perhaps a different pricing structure would be necessary to stimulate interest.

As for media reporting of electricity consumption, it is confusing, with some sources saying that the rate of electricity consumption has been less than the rate of population growth, while other sources are saying that the rate of electricity consumption has been greater than the rate of population growth.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 10 April 2011 4:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear yet another thread about climate denials.
Can anyone tell me why climate denial think 100 ppm of CO2 has no effect but 0.7 ppm of O3 does?
Back to the article itself. Interesting piece but I can't help thinking that I was surprised at the author talking about journalism, I didn't think they did that anymore. I far as I can see the new papers, radio and telly is filled with a people who don't let their ignorance stop them from having a strong opinion about a subject and having a complete disrespect for everyone who disagrees with them.
Never mind Climate reporting just look at the trash that they try to pass off as political reporting.
Posted by cornonacob, Sunday, 10 April 2011 6:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the real problem here is that science education, in Australia at least, is essentially useless. Content is written by the ‘advocacy blocks’. If you don’t understand what a scientific hypothesis is, and if you’ve no idea of how to test it, you’re at the mercy of anyone who sounds convincing.

Lacking the tools necessary to analyse the sort of hyperbolic assertions that get bruited about in public discourse, people resort to the old argumentum ad verecundiam. Who’s telling the truth, who’s exaggerating, who’s lying? If your only decision procedure is to assess the speaker’s reputation, or to count heads in the various advocacy blocks and believe whichever spokesperson tells the best lies about how many people accept his/her position, you’re not just vulnerable, you’re doomed.

There’s no other explanation for The Goreacle. An Inconvenient Truth is the biggest showcase for junk science since Bishop Usher, and the only reason for swallowing a bar of it is that Al Gore had authority. Once. In politics, not science.

It wouldn’t be that hard to give students a few basic insights into statistics, for instance. Just a little knowledge, the sort that could easily be taught in primary school, would have been enough to raise questions about Wakefield’s scare campaign against MMR vaccines. Only a tiny bit of physics will tell you that Himalayan glaciers can’t melt away in just 20 years.

Educating journalists isn’t a solution — a journo is just another authoritative voice, and believing authority because it’s authoritative is just one more example defective induction.

It isn’t necessary for EVERYONE to know enough science to sort truth from the grant-inducing fictions so many ‘scientists’ and journos peddle these days. If a few friends and neighbours are sufficiently educated in science to call a foul, even the ignorant will think twice about accepting the more extravagant claims they encounter in the media. But, because science education is so poor, most people will never encounter a credible objection. Fix that problem, and you’re home free. Ignore it, and you’re left with ... argumentum ad verecundiam.
Posted by donkeygod, Sunday, 10 April 2011 6:50:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot/Bugsy - no that silly arguement does not get you out of it. You dragged Plimer in because he's the only one of the many sceptical scientists you can criticise (names given in the earlier post).

To drag in Plimer, specifically in order to attack him, gives you hope that, really, the global warming case might have some substance after all. You concentrate on the weakest (or most attackable) in a series of arguments and hope that no-one will notice the strength of the rest of the case, or that you can't think of any other counter-arguments.

As for the business of admitting errors, there are still scientists who cling to the hockey stick graph which the originator, Mann, has himself abandonded, without really admitting he has done so and without apology.

If you're going to get indigant over failure to admit errors, get indignant with the global warming crowd.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Sunday, 10 April 2011 8:54:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 10 April 2011 9:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone waiting for warmists to table scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming, will be waiting in vain. This is because the warmists' case is based on the AGW hypothesis, which has failed to be validated by scientific evidence.

Instead of using the scientific method, the best the warmists can do is assert that AGW is real, often depending on alarmist results from climate models, and questionable conclusions.
Posted by Raycom, Sunday, 10 April 2011 11:19:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian McNair's thoughtful piece deserved a better reception than the ill-informed anti-science nastiness which pervades most of the responses in this blog. The bad, as Yeats said, are full of a passionate intensity ... and impervious to argument or evidence. Raycom, it is actually quite easy to find evidence which supports the theory of human-influenced climate change (if you actually want to.) You could start with the freely-available scientific literature (Nature, Science, JGR, PNAS, Proceedings of the Royal Society etc etc) online or in your local library. Presumably you understand the process of peer review, which is normal practice in all branches of science. The implication of peer review is that published material has been through a minimum of quality control, and is sufficiently robust that the editors can offer it for public comment. This does not mean that it has to conform to the editors' own views - science editors, just like editors in the daily media, like a good argument. (Incidentally, what is difficult is finding sound evidence which refutes the theory of human-influenced climate change, in amongst all the noise.)
Posted by nicco, Thursday, 14 April 2011 8:36:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicco, it is up to the believers of the AGW hypothesis to table the scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused measurable global warming. After some 20 years of searching and over US$100 billion of research expenditure, your quoted scientific literature sources have failed to come up with such scientific evidence. The best they can do is assert. Assertion is not science.

In the unlikely event that you are aware of a scientific paper that contains that evidence, then please quote its reference
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 15 April 2011 11:48:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicco,

Raycom obviously knows very little about the scientific process, peer review or weight of evidence.

If he did, he wouldn't make such blatant stupid assertions himself.

All he can do is repeat the same old anti-science guff we've come to expect from his ilk.

Best leave people like that wallow in their own mud.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 16 April 2011 8:52:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicco,

I appreciate your point. I do value science, and I agree that there is evidence of AGW. But you're arguing like a lawyer for the AGW proposition, glossing weaknesses your position, patronising critics. It leaves you vulnerable.

No offence, but mentioning 'Nature' as your first stop for AGW 'facts' is ... careless. Like most science journals, ‘Nature's’ policy is to require disclosure of data supporting the author's case as a precondition of publication. That policy has been widely flouted for pro-AGW articles; in some cases, even the calculations have been withheld. It's PROFOUNDLY unscientific to publish a conclusion without putting both data and calculations into the public domain. In my mind, any publication that does so fails to meet minimum standards for science. ‘Nature’ is a serial offender here, and has also been less than impartial in their commentary. ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’ are not where assertions about AGW are tested. PNAS and JGR are better.

You also bring up peer review. Bad strategy — it works for your opponents. You MUST be aware of the long-standing controversy about 'Pal' review in climate science. Had statisticians been allowed to critique Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick' paper (they clamoured loudly enough throughout the many years the IPCC highlighted it), that paper would never have been published. The data was cherry-picked, the calculations were simply invalid, the conclusions could not be replicated. ‘Pal’ review was at the heart of ‘climategate’.

True, no science ‘refutes’ the AGW hypothesis. In science, hypotheses are NEVER refuted or confirmed — they’re tested. Competing hypotheses exist in every scientific field, and testing them defines the scientific method. The AGW hypothesis is acceptable to the degree that it can withstand the challenge of counter-interpretations. Unlike mathematics, science NEVER goes beyond CONDITIONAL acceptance of ANY hypothesis. It’s not difficult to find such challenges in PNAS or JGR, though you don’t find many in Nature, Science, or IPCC publications.

It’s not anti-science to challenge AGW tenets. Frivolous challenges actually strengthen your case. They’re not all frivolous, though, and like it or not, science requires you to address them.
Posted by donkeygod, Saturday, 16 April 2011 1:57:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donkeygod

In hindsight it’s easy to ‘attack’ Mann for his TER ‘hockey stick’. I hope you’re not inferring that all ‘hockey sticks’ in AR4 were tainted with the same brush given they were based on completely different data sets than Mann’s original. All 14 show similar trends.

Besides, when corrections were applied, they didn't have world wide shattering significance - you must know that.

Of course it’s not anti-science to challenge AGW tenets; real sceptics do it all the time – and they are addressed in peer review, whether you agree with it or not.

Frivolous and anti-science challenges are made mostly in forums such as this – you must be aware of that.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 16 April 2011 4:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further, as to "challenges" in general science journals - I agree. But as you rightly point out, (more nuanced) challenges are covered reasonably well in the more nuanced Journals.

As far as the IPCC "publications", there are numerous references to contrarian publications.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 16 April 2011 7:10:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom's demand for a single paper which "proves" climate change suggests that Raycom doesn't understand how science actually operates. There are hundreds if not thousands of published papers dealing with the many aspects of climate science, and they are actually quite easy to find - if you want to. But to try to assist, here's a reference to one paper (Solomon et al), and to a statement by the Geological Society of London. This is not a research paper as such; it is a position paper from a major scientific institution, and (read it through to the end) it has copious references to research papers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632717/?tool=pmcentrez
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/policy/policy_statements/climatechange
Posted by nicco, Sunday, 17 April 2011 9:33:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Climate change" does not need "proving", as it is a natural process which has been going on since Earth's beginning. It is the AGW hypothesis that needs to be proved.

There is abundant compelling scientific evidence that invalidates the IPCC's hypothesis that human greenhouse emissions (especially of CO2) will cause dangerous global warming. For references to some eight tests of the hypothesis of dangerous AGW, see end-note 228 on pp286-288 of Robert M Carter, "Climate: the Counter Consensus", 2010, published by Stacey International. (End-note 228 takes up 3 pages of fine print, and is thus too long to be quoted here.)

The references provided by Nicco do not contain scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused measurable global warming.

The paper by Solomon et al reports on simulations carried out with climate models. Because the scientific understanding of factors influencing climate is far from complete (climate science is not settled), the models fail to represent complex natural climate behaviour. Diagnostic testing of the IPCC climate models by independent scientists, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and others, has confirmed that the models consistently failed. Consequently, the climate models cannot be relied on for prediction purposes, and their projections can be regarded only as speculative.

(Cont.in following post)
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 20 April 2011 9:41:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont. from previous post)

The position statement by the Geological Society of London asserts that "it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun)" and that " it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise ".

The 2007 IPCC Report cited over 18,000 references, but not one contained scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of climate change. The strongest endorsement that the IPCC could give in its 2007 Report, was the assertion, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Alan Carlin's 2011 paper, "A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change", accessible at
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf
neatly sums up at p 992 the assertive, pseudo-scientific thrust of the IPCC reports: "The various UN IPCC reports broadly argue that the authors cannot think of any reasonable source of global warming other than the increasing level of some GHGs (greenhouse gases), so that must be the cause. There are a few exceptions, such as large volcanic eruptions, which they agree may influence global temperatures, but they do not believe that the warming can be attributed to most other natural causes such as solar or cloud cover variability, which they view as being of minor or little importance in influencing climate."
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 20 April 2011 9:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, splitting hairs, says that climate change needs no "proof" because it is happening anyway - but he wants "evidence" in a single scientific paper that human activites affect climate. Once again, this demonstrates that Raycom doesn't understand how science operates. There are hundreds if not thousands of published papers on all aspects of human influence on climate. Here, for example, are two references:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.full
http://www.biogeosciences.net/5/1601/2008/bg-5-1601-2008.pdf

What is baffling is how Raycom can quote the Geological Society,whose characteristically cautious statement nevertheless confirms their view that human activity affects climate, as if it meant the exact opposite. It seems that Raycom has made his decision, and nothing is going to change it. It would be nice if he were right in his views (no one actually wants disaster) but the science is against him.
Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 20 April 2011 3:59:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy