Mark Curmudgeon says "The confusion is there because the subject is confused, and the media simply reflects that. The media is not there to report a single viewpoint, whether its yours or a 'consensus' of experts."

This is not the case. In the first instance, as I tried to make clear in my earlier post, "the media" cannot be treated as a single bloc. The rabid opinion-shapers (Jones et al) are clearly not reflecting a confused or confusing subject: they are attempting to shape community opinion, and are presumably paid to do just that.

Many would also dispute that the subject is confused. It is certainly highly complex, and non-scientists may find it confusing; but large numbers of researchers are quite confident that the science is sound. It is this confidence in the science that some sections of the media are attempting to shake.

Media madness indeed.

popnperish,

Venting your spleen at the big end of town places you are the wrong end of the reality spectrum. "Commercial Opportunist Advocacy" is just part of the overall advocacy block. The big end of town is represented on both sides of the debate, which is why they are called commercial opportunists.

Spindoc
I really have no idea what you're talking about. Could you be more specific? Are you suggesting that climate scientists are taking money from the Big End of Town? That they use this money to tout a particular line of argument? That they benefit from doing so? Come on, be specific - otherwise don't use libellous innuendo.

Spindoc - um, MSM? Lost me on that one. But yes, there have been numerous attempts to shift blame for the public losing interest

popnperish
I was sufficiently interested by your reference to the CO2 link article to check out at least the abstract in Nature. That scientist is not actually saying that he has established a rigorous link, as such - difficult to see how he could given recent climate history - instead he says he has established a figure for the climate response to carbon input FROM MODELS. He then seems to have adjusted that figure using actual numbers of some sort from the real system. Its completely worthless as any sort of proof, in other words.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html

As for the business about receiving funds, I ackowledge that at least you've excluded me. (But if they do ever hand out funds to journos let me know.) What actually happens is that companies like Exxon-Mobil grant funds to public organisations that may then, as part of a larger brief, say something about global warming. Scientists may be associated with that organisation, perhaps tenuously. This is where this complete nonsense about funds flowing to scientists has come from.

I have seen one count by the greenhouse side which managed to add up those hand outs to public bodies to $20 million, but even that probably inflated amount is utterly trivial compared to the vast sums flowing to the greenhouse side. We are talking multi billions for research, and many billions more for large organisations dedicated to fighting the greenhouse fight, as well as those that are just eco-crazy, namely Greenpeace (global annual turnover, 400 million euros, I think..) Then there are the government departments - $80 million a year for the Aus Department of Climate Change alone.

Not only is the assertion obviously wrong, but the exact opposite is the case.

Mark Lawson/Curmudgeon
I appreciate you have an ideological opposition to models but, as far as I can ascertain, the assumptions drawn in that study are perfectly valid. Perhaps I can suggest the precautionary principle once again.
Assuming that scientists do receive grants from the Big End of Town, what distinguishes them from ideologues who also receive money is that they have a professional obligation to seek out the truth, not to push a particular barrow. It's called 'professional ethics' in case you're unfamiliar with the term.

popnperish
you are leaping far ahead of what I actually wrote.

I have no ideological opposition to models. I merely pointed out that the paper you cite does not establish a link, but puts forward a figure for climate response to carbon. Scienitsts have been arguing over just how sensitive climate is to CO2 emissions for years now. The paper settles nothing.

Second, I also merely pointed out that all the money is flooding into the greenhouse side, and the skeptics are getting virtually nothing, and this is blindingly obvious from the merest glance at the public record. I didn't say anything about the motives of the scientists who receive the multi-billions in greenhouse funds. You seem to think that grant money corrupts, so what do you think the effect would be?