This something I found Dated 22/2/10 on Eureka Alert.org so its current
It clearly summaries what I've been saying for yonks
>"Mass media have been a key vehicle by which climate change contrarianism has traveled, according to Maxwell Boykoff, a University of Colorado at Boulder professor and fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,

Boykoff, an assistant professor of environmental studies, presented his research today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego.

"One problem occurs when outlier viewpoints are not individually evaluated in context,"
"A variety of influences and perspectives typically have been collapsed by mass media into one general category of skepticism. This has been detrimental both in terms of dismissing legitimate critiques of climate science or policy, as well as amplifying extreme and tenuous claims."

Such claims are amplified when traditional news media position noncredible contrarian sources against those with scientific data, in a failed effort to represent opposing sides,"

Another issue in mass media is the tendency to flatly report on both the claims of contrarians, as well as the accusations made about their claims and motives. The ensuing finger-pointing plays into the conflict, drama and personalized stories that drive news. It also distracts attention from critical institutional and societal challenges regarding carbon consumption that calls citizen behaviors, actions and decisions to account.

"Reducing climate science and policy considerations to a tit-for-tat between dueling personalities comes at the expense of appraising fundamental challenges regarding the necessary de-carbonization of industry and society,"

Among various and ongoing research strategies, Boykoff -- in partnership with Maria Mansfield from Exeter University and the University of Oxford -- has tracked climate change coverage in 50 newspapers in 20 countries and six continents since 2004. Boykoff also has looked at how climate science and policy find meaning and traction in people's everyday lives through work in the United States, United Kingdom and India.

For more information on Boykoff's research visit http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/"<
NB the topic is about the medias role NOT AGW.

This is a joke Examinator, Right?

Our media has not really reported all the cons, lies & shifty processes the leading warmists have been using. They have in the UK, & to a lesser extent the US, hence the rapid wake up of their public. The acceptance of the con, after the Phil Jones interview is down to 23%.

When do you think our media will report that the head warmist, Phil Jones, has agreed, on a TV interview, that there has been no statistically relevant warming in the in the last 15 years. And you reckon they aren't pro warming rubbish. Hell, I'm even listening to some warmist propaganda on the ABC right now.

I should have learnt by now, that the ABC old grey mare aint what she used to be. Once upon a time you could believe anything you heard on the ABC, now you can expect it to be well & truely spun, hard left, before it gets to air.

Lets just look at some of Mr Flannery's past and present predictions and you will see why so many people now realize that the man made gw theories have been largely based on mythology. Whether it be melted glaziers, sea levels or temperatures we have been fed a pack of lies. The head of the IPCC has lost all credibility and CopenHagen was nothing short of a very expensive joke.

What is heartening is that so many average citizens have picked up on this scam despite the lack of integrity of our national broadcasters to report anything other than their dogmas. They now have egg all over their faces. Media watch is so so desperate to find flaws in those who have exposed this rubbish.

No it's not a joke you should really read a bit wider The herald sun, The Aus, even the courier mail is prone to contrarianism it sells papers. Alan Jones and his ilk , Monckton, Plimer, All the gates none of which have real scientific substance or sense but they make good copy.
Look at Glaciergate The flaw was the 35 year prediction *not* that the eastern and Himalayan glaciers that feed the major Chinese/ Indian aren't actually retreating. Tat bit doesn't make interesting copy.

Even the Pauline Hanson was raised beyond her competence and real substance because she was 'bankable copy' i.e.What does it matter if Hansen is off to England? any bets how soon before she's back?

Corby only makes the pages because she is attractive and therefore 'bankable copy'. Name the Aussies males who were executed or those that are in jail now for the same crimes?

A perfect example is that the media will largely ignore many of the latest 'proofs' of mounting problems because they are boring.

Watch this story
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222120137.htm
(full map http://www.glaciers.er.usgs.gov) any bets on if it gets 10 or 20 seconds?
Bet they don't cite the number of satellites involved or link it to GRACE that shows the ice nearest to the ground is melting, causing the thinning from the bottom up.

runner,
What part of >"NB the topic is about the medias role, NOT AGW"<
Don't you understand?

I think the answer is obvious in who owns the mass media and whether they personally are deniers. If Rupert says AGW is crap then his wage slaves better agree and back him up or they will be on the street quick smart.

Dear Examinator,

The coverage of climate change has
increased significantly over
the last few years and the pictures presented have
varied from using apocalyptic visions - to lengthy
scientific discussions that go over most people's
heads. In all it's no wonder that some people find
the entire subject of climate change - confusing,
contradictory and chaotic -
while others feel it's a "crucial issue."

The flood of information that's brought into the
home, much of it is highly selective or distorted.
News programs tend to feature the visually exciting,
controversial,
or emotionally moving stories that draw large viewing
audiences - even if this means omitting issues that
are more sober but perhaps significant also. With
climate change - using alarming images is commercially
motivated - mundane, domestic, and uncompelling - are
the words - the media translates for scientific evidence.
There's been no analysis of what their coverage amounts to -
and what impact it might be having - until now.

When a few errors are found amongst the thousands of pages
of scientific evidence - the media blows those errors out
of all proportion - and runs with it. It becomes newsworthy.

Climate change is an issue that is not about to disappear -
especially in an election year - and with the government's
push for the emissions trading scheme. It is a crucial
issue - the media is well aware of this fact - and it will
affect future generations in the years to come. It is time
that the media took its role far more seriously - and
did not distort things. But I guess that's wishful
thinking.

The relationship of the media and politicians is parasitic
and interdependent, like that of police and criminals.
Each side wishes to exploit the other and is disappointed
at its failure.

The same as hoping that politicians would leave politics
out of what needs to be done for the good of the nation.
How about we send them to live on one of the fast
disappearing Pacific Islands and see if tree planting is
going to help?

You and your author are very much on to something examinator.
I have watched and known this is the case for some time.
In 50 years todays climate change deniers may have much to answer for.

Well I'm glad you predicted that as I never would have. I am amazed. Almost everything I have seen in the mass media pumps the climate change message. I recall Cardinal Pell bumbling in and saying words to the effect that the emissions trading scheme will cause people a lot of suffering so we need to be sure that the climate change theory is valid before we take action. The media crucified him as a heretic for what would be taken as a reasonable statement if it were about anything else.

I agree 100% Examinator.
The news these days is utterly commercial and contentious, adjusting its content according to popular demand, thus reinforcing the various prejudices. It doesn't really matter what side is taken on issues so long as its sensational. I even find myself shaking my head through the ABC news and the 7.30 report more and more. SBS is better.
In my view, no intelligent person would watch commercial television News or current affairs, and of course the shock jocks are beneath contempt, as is most of the print media--good only for bringing "some" of the news: whatever's sexy or distressing or feeds the anxieties of our neurotic race.
The art of "thinking" seems nearly lost; much easier to consume pre-digested news that suits the palate.
I sound like a terrible cynic!
Of course I don't include the OLOers; a much more thoughtful bunch.

examinator, of course the media plays a huge role in modern society, primarily in shaping perceptions. It is no different with the topic of climate change. I find it fascinating that you are now shifting, and predictably so, to the “laying of blame”.

You are not alone, internationally; most of the AGW advocates have shifted their tactics to this position. What you are seeking to do is to blame skeptics for the failure of the movement to convince them. You then proceed to imply that there is a fundamental weakness in skeptics which makes them vulnerable to the media.

It is time you fully grasped reality, skeptics are totally and utterly immune to media hype.

In addition, skeptics have been consistently skeptical for the past 20 plus years whilst the UN, most MSM, many scientists and a huge dollop of NGO’s ran amock, and who was it that fell for it? Yes, you did.

Judging by many of the links you have posted on this forum, you seem to have been quite happy to use and quote from the media support you have enjoyed. Since the introduction of “reasonable doubt” in the past three months, now the media are to blame?

The last time we had this discussion I suggested that you were in anger/denial, and understandably so. I also suggested your next phase would be the “laying of blame”. So here you are. Perhaps now is an opportune time for you to move to the next phase, acceptance and reconciliation.

Don’t stop now, you’re on a roll.

I presume of course you are referring to mainstream Australian media not things like pyjamas media.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-senator-barbara-boxer-and-epa-administrator-lisa-jackson-throw-ipcc-under-the-bus/

or U-Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idTHcot8tLc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrWZK1rP3g

The media does run campaigns that have no basis in truth.
Take the Pauline Hansen case.
She announced publically, I heard it mtself, that she was not leaving
Australia but was going on a holiday to New Zealand and the UK.
When she returned was thinking of moving south.

Just three days ago the BBC repeated the story that she was migrating
to the UK. Perhaps this is what happened to her political campaign.

I have just received a copy of the US Senate enquiry into the CRU
at East Anglia Uni, the IPCC and the US climate scientists.
I don't have the URL for it, and I have only just had a quick look
but it must be available on the US Senate gov website. It is 84 pages.
Worth a read I think.

Examinator, we understand that you want the topic to be about the role of the media, but you shoot yourself in the foot with a bloody big gun when you say,

” No it's not a joke you should really read a bit wider The herald sun, The Aus, even the courier mail is prone to contrarianism it sells papers. Alan Jones and his ilk , Monckton, Plimer, All the gates none of which have real scientific substance or sense but they make good copy.
Look at Glaciergate The flaw was the 35 year prediction *not* that the eastern and Himalayan glaciers that feed the major Chinese/ Indian aren't actually retreating. Tat bit doesn't make interesting copy.”

You see, silly old buggers like me think that those you choose to denigrate actually do have science on their side. The Fairfax Group, Channels Nine and Seven and the whole of the ABC only present one side of the argument. We actually want debate on the subject.

One of the Rudd Govts. biggest mistakes was that it did not encourage debate, then it lied about their science. Are you aware that in the UK the school teachers, when showing Al Gore’s film Inconvenient Truths, are required to stop the film 35 times to point out to the students lies, mistakes, half-truths and unresolved science so that their students actually learn the truth? In Australia our teachers do not have to point out the lies etc. It is taught as gospel.

Sen Wong continually says that sceptics do not believe in climate change. I have never met a real scientist who does not believe in climate change. That would be stupid, would it not?

(continued from previous post)

We need Allan Jones, Monckton, Plimer, Carter and Kininmonth and others to put their views forward, because one of the biggest lies is that the IPCC is a group of scientists that arrive at peer-reviewed conclusions. The president of the IPCC is a railway engineer! Phil Jones lied about his science and was found out. Yvo de Boer failed to get his communist world govt. up at the last IPCC Copenhagen meeting (see the United Nation Framework Committee on Climate Change, September 2009, page 18) so de Boer resigned.

When did Rudd tell us that he was going to Copenhagen to ratify the UNFCCC’s manifesto? When did the Fairfax Group (The Age and the SMH) or Channel Seven or Channel Nine or the ABC report on this manifesto to form a new world government that has the power to tax sovereign nations and even fine individuals and organisations within sovereign nations?

It was Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun who warned us.

Your article and the topic tell us more about your politics than your ethics.

Geoffrey Kelley

At least there are some media organisations that are prepared to
publish anything relevant.
Here is the Q & A session the BBC had with Prof Phil Jones of CRU.
Question B mentioned previously is below;

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no
statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995
to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not
significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is
quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical
significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer
periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Here is the URL for the interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

The only place I have seen this mentioned locally was on ABC Q&A
last night and it got over ridden by the general clutter of noise
of the AGW audience when no warming since 1995 was mentioned.

Strange they were putting down the finding of one of their own !

Spindoc old mate,
With all due respect when it comes to me in your generalization you are talking rubbish. I'd even dispute your generalization.

I've been a trenchant critic of the capitalist driven media for the better part of 26 years. Especially when it comes to anything important. Check it out.
AGW is the latest example of why.

This article and the research behind it proves my point, with a detail study.

I resisted the term AGW because it is sensationalised and misses the essential point, Preferring the more accurate less sensational ACC.
I've written several times on both this issue and been ignored or rubbished.

I do believe the pro advocates are partially to blame by latching on to the publicity without any serious attempt to explain the issues clearly. The debate has been run largely by the contrarian main stream media.

I still reason that most people don't really understand the nature of science theory in its self. I reason this is because the media *sells the sizzle* the steak is not of interest.If this wasn't so there wouldn't be any need for the parasitic advertising industry. and political elections would be far less costly.

I still say the pro advocate have simply seen the error of their ways and trying a new strategy i.e. NASA's new (yesterday)
http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld. web site

Bazz,
You prove my point 'one of their own' that is polarized nonsense which is the problem with the media read the site I posted above carefully there is a clear statement of why there are differences and that all is above board the data the programm source code the lot hardly a conspiritorial issue.
Also note regardless of 'side' a scientist is from they face the same scrutiny. I also note that the audience wasn't there to listen to a discussion of the merits of AGW. that turkey just didn't get the message.

Examinor,
You missed the point, their rejection was not because they
were not there to discuss AGW, it was because they did not believe the
statement that "There has been no significant warming since 1995".

They did not either listen to who it was who made the statement
originally or they did not know, or care who Phil Jones was.

The whole thing is a mess and I think the UK met office has the right
idea, draw a line under it and start again.

You’re way too negative Examinator . Yes of course the media is a fickle lover , but you’ve got to admit the relationship was good while it lasted !

Remember the good times you had together. Like when the papers printed the predictions of scientists affiliated with the IPCC that the reef would soon disappear ,and had everyone scurrying for tickets .Or,the time Peter Garret held a room full of cadet reporters starry eyed while he talked of a six metre sea rises. Or,the greatest media heist of all, when the IPCC sexed up its reports with talk that the Himalayan glaciers would melt within 35 years , and generate millions of refugees.( that had both the media and people smugglers attention!)

Think of how many school news & current affairs sessions such reports featured in –all those impressible young minds, hearing nothing but AGW propaganda.

Think of those thousands of electors conned with talk of Kyoto and good world citizenship into voting for Rudd-labour, believing they were saving the world and ushering in a new green millennium. (the only ones who still believe that are Rudd... & Belly!)

Ok so now the cosy relationship has ended –but you’ve kept you honour intact -- what little of it you had. The only one who got shafted in the end was the Australian electorate.

examinator, if you’re not happy with the MSM, try the US Senate Report into the CRU. Hot off the press so to speak.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Senate%20Report%20on%20CRU&mkt=en-au&FORM=TBHT&DI=2883&CE=14.0&CM=SearchWeb

Oh please spindoc, that US Senate (Minority) Report into the CRU (hot off the press).

I assume you know the background of Senator Inhofe - you are spinning it just like he does, as usual.

examinator

Yes, there is a concerted effort to thwart action on tackling the problems of climate change. This, as you have obviously noted, is becoming increasingly shrill in the main stream media.

A number of examples come to mind, not only here in Oz (Bolt, Akerman, Devine and Co) but also from the far right-wing journos in the US and the UK.

Linked are 2 responses to the Guardian’s straight-shootin Fred Pearce, another spindoctor of the facts:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/

I think it despicable that supposedly ‘open-minded’ journalists spruik their own biased “opinions” in the name of balanced reporting.

Sure, if they have a problem understanding the science, ask the questions. But they don’t, they sow the seeds of doubt and confusion by deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the science, as the reports within the above links demonstrate.

Hi qanda,

<< I think it despicable that supposedly ‘open-minded’ journalists spruik their own biased “opinions” in the name of balanced reporting.>>

Well said, it is despicable, how dare journalists have an opinion? Just to add insult to injury, we now have politicians in the US having an opinion, truly shocking. Fortunately, these US politicians are only, as you rightly point out, just a “US Senate (minority) committee”, phew! Good job they are not “serious” politicians, I mean it’s not like they can do anything. Well, apart from setting in motion 16 separate legal challenges to the EPA legislation, one of them the State of Texas.

The Senate Report of course, has absolutely no impact on AGW, (sic.) mostly because the US Senate “minority” committee is the opposition (really?). All they can possibly do is stop further carbon legislation in its tracks, start litigation against the EPA, create the opportunity for class action, make sure that any body/entity/person found to be guilty of supplying the US federal government with false/misleading/erroneous statements which result in US taxpayers being duded, will go directly to goal for up to five years.

As you will have seen from the Senate Report, (if you actually read it?) the reach of US jurisdiction extends to all those “contributing” to that EPA policy decision. Is that why de Boer “resigned” from the UN this week?

We don’t need to ask “you” questions about “the science” because it has already gone way past science. The significance of the “insignificant” US Senate (minority) Committee may have escaped your attention. It serves only one purpose, and that is to get AGW in front of the US Courts.

If you think for one instant that the AGW movement, the IPCC, the CRU or any other contributor to US legislation, has a chance of survival against to US Constitution, you have rocks in you head.

I won’t ask you to bet on it, but I do suggest you sit back and watch. Forget the media, the whole game is now being played with adults.

Re qanda

Now look what you’ve gone and done, Spindoc …you’ve spoiled qanda’s little fantasy.
There’s not supposed to be any scientists opposed to the AGW dogma (or, so he tells himself ).

But don’t you just love the characteristic qanda response :

“Oh please spindoc, that US Senate (Minority) Report into the CRU (hot off the press).

I assume you know the background of Senator Inhofe - you are spinning it just like he does, as usual.”

Now, watch, qanda’s going tell us that senator Inhofe somewhere, somehow, committed some sin that was-- forever damning .
Perhaps he questioned the veracity of mother Teresa … or perhaps he was seen leaving a porn shop ! And this means ( in qanda-think) that every authority cited on that report is not just discredited, but of low moral fibre.


Re Examinator,

1) “This article and the research behind it proves my point, with a detail study.”
All the article indicates, is that there is a assistant professor out there who wants to have the word “assistant” removed from his handle.
But if he honesty thinks that up till now, the AGW/IPCC case hasn’t had a fair run in the media, he's having himself on.

2) “I resisted the term AGW because it is sensationalised and misses the essential point, Preferring the more accurate less sensational ACC”
LOL--In keeping with the theme of honest reporting :up till very recently Examinator has used the acronym “AGW” .
It was only after qanda made the snobbish remark that is was no longer PC, that Examinator decided to ditch AGW for ACC.
Funny how he presents it as being a long hold position!

On the contrary Horus, there are a few genuine "sceptics" (in the scientific sense) I quite respect - if you have understood any of my previous posts on the subject, you would know of whom I refer.

Indeed, some share the same research interest. However, whilst we may respectfully disagree on some of the nuances (something of which I know you wouldn't understand, let alone appreciate) we encourage each other to pursue our hypotheses.

The problem you and the rest of the cynics have is that you really think there is a tsunami against the science - that to me, just demonstrates how ignorant of the science you are, sorry.

The globe is warming, believe it or not - pedants won't change that fact. There is much study into its attribution, and there is very robust evidence to significantly link that attribution to human induced causes - whether you believe that or not, I really don't give a damn.

And it was a George W Bush policy advisor who popularised the term "climate change" for what is now being referred to in geological time as the anthropocene.

Yes spindoc, it is despicable that supposedly ‘open-minded’ journalists spruik their own biased “opinions” in the name of balanced reporting.

When a supposedly ‘open minded’ journalist like Fred Pearce (or Jonathan Leake, or Andrew Bolt, or Piers Akerman, or .... you get the drift) infuses their own opinion into what a scientist like Ben Santer has actually said, it is shocking.

For example (in the link above) Fred Pearce not only repeats unfounded allegations against Santer, but also does not provide a balanced account of the rebuttals to them. Rather, Pearce opines that Santer is engaged in political tampering.

And from your snarky comment above, it appears you are ok with this - and you call yourself a sceptic, what a joke.
____

examinator

You might be interested in this interview with Gerry North:

http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_100219a.mp3

Scientists have received a lot of flack lately and self opinionated journos and media shock jocks just want to sensationalise a story, and they are being cheered on by the blinkered sensationalist spindoctors of this world.

Qanda, until you post at least one bit of hard evidence, that CO2 has anything to do with global warming, you are only passing so much hot air.

While you're at it you could explain why the laws of physics should be suspended, when we think about AGW, & only about AGW.

qanda, the following is a very small sample of international media reports. Question, what did the AGW’ers get right? And who is “spinning”?

IPCC admits what they got wrong:
Melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035;
Endanger 40 percent of Amazon rainforests;
Melt mountain ice in the Alps, Andes, and Africa;
Deplete water resources for 4.5 billion people by 2085, neglecting to mention that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as 6 billion people;
Lead to rapidly increasing costs due to extreme weather-related events; and
Slash crop production by 50 percent in North Africa by 2020.

In addition, the IPCC:
Incorrectly stated that 55 percent of the Netherlands lies below sea level;
Included a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power that has been found to contain numerous errors; and
Used a biased report by the activist group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures.
Downplayed the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic to dramatize the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

NIWA’s Tim Mahood admits on 29 January that NIWA does not hold copies of the original worksheets.'" No SOA, no validation of NZ Temps.

Prof Jones has admitted that some of the paperwork underpinning his research on temperature records from weather stations in China has been lost.
Prof Jones has admitted there has been no warming since 1995.
Prof Jones has admitted that this is not the warmest period on record, the MWP was.

CRU researcher and programmer Ian “Harry” Harris writes:
“The expected Canadian stations temp records for 1990-2003 period is MISSING, I can make it up. So I have.”
“Another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity; it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.”
“to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).”

Hasbeen, start here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

I can only suggest you read the report in full and actually read the referenced research findings, listed on pages 733 - 743

Most people won’t do this and are quite prepared to put their faith in media shock-jocks and self-opinionated bloggers.

Your last quip says it all really; you too are regurgitating ideological based nonsense.
____

spindoc

It is so very clear that you don't understand Gerry North and it is so very plain that you distort, misrepresent and take things out of context.

You poignantly state, “it has already gone way past science (sic).” I couldn't agree more - you put faith in what you want to believe in. Like I said, you a sceptic, what a joke.

qanda, this thread was started by examinator in an attempt to blame the MSM for the creation of skeptics and for the collapse of the AGW case. You call everything with which you disagree, spin.

My point, which I think has convincingly been made, is that what has been published by even the former supportive AGW media, particularly the Guardian and the BBC, is simply what has been admitted to, or acknowledged by the scientists and bodies involved.

It is not my spin; I didn’t write or publish it. If you cannot deal with the reality of what has been said by the IPCC, CRU, NIWA, Met Office, EAU, take it up with them.

If they did not agree with what they were quoted saying, we would see a retraction or legal action. In the absence of such, we can be sure that they did in fact make these admissions.

Their admissions I’m sure, leave you hollow and gutted. Frankly, I don’t know how you deal with it. You have probably been a believer for some years and I genuinely think you do believe what you’ve been told. You acknowledge it’s no longer about science yet you are still banging out science links? There are many in the same boat as you but it really is all over, save yourself from more anguish and move on.

If, on the other hand you really do wish to challenge the 19 acknowledged facts in my post of Friday, 26 February 2010 12:35:12 PM, then that’s fine with me.

The questions for you were << what did the AGW’ers get right? And who is “spinning”?

Qanda, you've got to be kidding.

What a pile of mistakes, half truths, & straight out lies, mixed up with so much bull sh1t & verbiage, to try to hide it all.

It damn near worked. I'm sure it's so badly written that it was done that way, to stop people reading it. They must have hoped everyone would give up in disgust, rather than start to analyes it all. There is not one thing in there that ties CO2 to global warming, or to anything else.

There is no hope for any one who can take this cr4p seriously.

Hasbeen, I think we’ve been “had”. The link posted by qanda seems to be just Chapter 9 from the IPCC TAR? There’s no date but that would place it circa 2007?

I’ve no idea why qanda places any significance on this document, especially since it has been systematically discredited by the same people who created it.

It does make great reading all the same, especially in light of the last three months and the whole “who said what and to whom”.

When you see references to such familiar names as Jones, Briffa, Wang, Trenbarth, Santer and Hansen in the context of recent admissions and the leaked programs, files and emails, it actually makes the whole debacle even more obvious.

The whole basis for this report was the “Gridded Surface Temperature Data Set”, the database now known as HadCRUT3. Moreover, that the data set had been run through the “AGW Simulator” HadCH3. These are part of the computer systems so comprehensively trashed in the HARRY_READ_ME programmer logs.

When you re-visit the report now, it looks impressive until you realize the whole thing is based upon statistical garbage. How would those authors feel, having put their names to it? We used to call such documents CLM’s, (career limiting moves).

Whilst I doubt we’ll get any sensible reply from qanda on this thread, I have to wonder why a three year old, publicly discredited assessment is still significant to qanda. It’s almost as if everything exposed in the media in past three months has simply not registered?

Is it simply “don’t want to go there”? Is it “can’t be bothered”? Beats me.

Hasbeen

Well done! You have just tried to read something that Joe & Jill Average would not even be aware of – and it was just one chapter (detection and attribution) out of the ‘The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change’ – itself only the first report (of the four) contained within AR4, published 3 years ago.

That one chapter is only a summary of the peer reviewed literature dealing with detection and attribution since the TAR. There has been robust research since then. And if you (anyone) had trouble understanding what was being said in that chapter, you (anyone) would have even more trouble understanding the referenced papers – not for the faint hearted.

Specialists write those papers, and specialists understand them. Have you ever seen a report from a medical specialist? Typically full of jargon and gobbledygook that completely eludes me – I just want to know why I’m sick, how serious the problem is, and what I should do about it.

You say the chapter on Understanding and Attributing Climate Change contains “a pile of mistakes, half truths, & straight out lies”.

Can you be more specific? What mistakes, half truths and lies are you referring to? These are serious allegations and I’m sure the specialists need to know. I’m being sarcastic of course. Thing is Hasbeen, that whole chapter does tie GHG emissions (and other natural forcings) to global warming.

I’d agree, there has to be a better way to filter and explain all this “cr4p” so that it can be more easily understood. That does not mean the “cr4p” is incorrect. The problem is, once you try to simplify it, things can be taken out of context, distorted or misrepresented (either intentionally or not) altogether.

Which brings me back on topic - it is so easy for the mainstream media to get it wrong (intentionally or not). I find it reprehensible that some (MSM shock and self opinionated ‘reporters/bloggers’) call for more openness, honesty and integrity in disseminating the science when they themselves blatantly lie, misrepresent and distort for their own agenda.

No kidding.

Spindoc

Real sceptics are also referenced; it’s just that there isn’t that many with published papers.

I bang on about the science spindoc because there are still some people out there that don’t understand the science. I would much prefer to move on like most other people – discussing what to do, when to do it, and by whom.

One minute we are asked to be more open, next minute we are told to fut the shuck up (or words to that effect) – go figure.

Qanda
1) I am seeing Aussie reviews of Hansens “Storms Of My GrandChildren” . Have you read it yet? How about giving OLO a review.

2) Oh, and an afterthought re: “The globe is warming, believe it or not - pedants won't change that fact.”

If the IPCC version of global warming is a “FACT” …why would Phil Jones have said the majority of (IPCC affiliated) scientists ,and Phil Jones himself , still do NOT think the debate is over!

I was lead to believe, by previous qanta postings, that such a consensus was the infallible measure/arbiter!

So, if that consensus says “it’s not over” doesn’t that throw into doubt your conclusion.And where does that place you– you can’t be a sceptic since you’re already SURE– you’d have to be either heretic, or worse…A DENIER !

qanda, you keep asking the same questions but not reading the answers?

You ask, in relation to the criticisms of the IPCC and the CRU, << Can you be more specific? What mistakes, half truths and lies are you referring to? >>

You have already been given 19 examples of precisely this (see Posted by spindoc, Friday, 26 February 2010 12:35:12 PM). These are the published admissions by the very people and bodies that created the assessments you directed us to with your link.

In a later post you were asked if you wished to challenge those admissions when I posted this;

<< If, on the other hand you really do wish to challenge the 19 acknowledged facts in my post of Friday, 26 February 2010 12:35:12 PM, then that’s fine with me. >>

You ask for evidence, the evidence is provided; you ignore it and ask again?

What do you want from OLO?

Horus

I got the book from Amazon.com, you can get some very good book reviews there.

As to your afterthought, you’re not the only one misinterpreting a few things. In terms of AGW, we have to be able to separate the signal from the noise – 15 years doesn’t quite cut it. If you do the time series analysis going back at least 30 years then yes, it is unequivocal, the globe is warming. However, in geologic time, the planet is in a cooling trend. It is ludicrous for people like Bob Carter to suggest global warming stopped in 1998, or as he is now saying, 2001. Give him a bit longer and he could well say 2005 or even 2009.

Horus, not even Newton’s theory of gravity, or Einstein’s theory of general relativity, is the science absolute – that is why scientists still have a day jobs.

________________________

spindoc says to me:

<< You ask, in relation to the criticisms of the IPCC and the CRU, “Can you be more specific? What mistakes, half truths and lies are you referring to?” >>

No, I did not ask this.

What I said (to Hasbeen) was:

“You say the chapter on Understanding and Attributing Climate Change contains “a pile of mistakes, half truths, & straight out lies”.

Can you be more specific? What mistakes, half truths and lies are you referring to?”

spindoc, you are either;

• Deliberately distorting my question
• Deliberately misrepresenting what I asked of Hasbeen
• Deliberately changing the goal posts
• Deliberately engaging in “bait and switch”
• Deliberately introducing a school of red herrings
• Deliberately raising a field of strawmen

OR

• Lacking comprehension skills

My guess is a combination of all, together with you whimpering and crying out ...“what about me”

If you want to keep banging on about a reference, to an item, in another chapter, even in another working group report, just keep sounding off like a fog horn - someone might take you up on it, but not me.

qanda, this thread is about the “spin” created by the media and, allegedly, by myself and others.

Your posts are confined to attacking the messengers, you have not responded to a single point in relation to media releases.

You have been given 19 recent media releases. I ask again, which ones in your view are spin and by who?

If your next post is another attack on OLO’ers, we can all reasonably conclude that you cannot substantiate your allegation that any of them are spin.

Why can’t you just say “sorry I got it wrong”?

Examinator opened the thread by reference to Maxwell Boykoff:

"One problem occurs when outlier viewpoints are not individually evaluated in context,"

"A variety of influences and perspectives typically have been collapsed by mass media into one general category of skepticism. This has been detrimental both in terms of dismissing legitimate critiques of climate science or policy, as well as amplifying extreme and tenuous claims."

“Such claims are amplified when traditional news media position no credible contrarian sources against those with scientific data, in a failed effort to represent opposing sides,"

Another issue in mass media is the tendency to flatly report on both the claims of contrarians, as well as the accusations made about their claims and motives. The ensuing finger-pointing plays into the conflict, drama and personalized stories that drive news. It also distracts attention from critical institutional and societal challenges regarding carbon consumption that calls citizen behaviors, actions and decisions to account.

"Reducing climate science and policy considerations to a tit-for-tat between dueling personalities comes at the expense of appraising fundamental challenges regarding the necessary de-carbonization of industry and society,"

Precisely, and if the preceding posts are anything to go by, no wonder he’s missing in action.

_____________

Spindoc << qanda, this thread is about the “spin” created by the media and, allegedly, by myself and others ... Your posts are confined to attacking the messengers, you have not responded to a single point in relation to media (releases) >>

You must have missed this:

Yes spindoc, it is despicable that supposedly ‘open-minded’ journalists spruik their own biased “opinions” in the name of balanced reporting.

When a supposedly ‘open minded’ journalist like Fred Pearce (or Jonathan Leake, or Andrew Bolt, or Piers Akerman, or .... you get the drift) infuses their own opinion into what a scientist like Ben Santer has actually said, it is shocking.

For example (in the link above) Fred Pearce not only repeats unfounded allegations against Santer, but also does not provide a balanced account of the rebuttals to them. Rather, Pearce opines that Santer is engaged in political tampering.

Thank you qanda, not a single reference to the 19 media releases?

I rest my case.

Now that organisations like the UK Met Office and it seems others are
advocating a back to square one and start with raw data all over again
perhaps everything should be put on hold for a period.

Some are even suggesting that no one knows whether the temperatures are
rising, falling or remaining steady.
It is a mess to make Peter Garret's pink bats look well organised !

The problem spindoc is that you can distort, misrepresent and dribble out "facts" at a rapid rate - 19 at last count? To answer each of the assertions with any due respect would obviously take a lot longer to answer than it has taken you to state, unless I simply say they’re wrong.

If I did the latter, an uninformed OLO audience sees it as my anonymous word against someone else. If I do the former, I give up any semblance of having a normal life. This would be despite the fact that your 19 are soundly explained and countered elsewhere – and you would know this. So I do not see any relevance what so all to rebut you since in my humble opinion, all you are showing here is a rambunctious and melodramatic rant, ‘look at me, look at me”.

Fortunately science is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of weighing up the evidence and as such, AGW is extremely robust, notwithstanding it is not absolute (a point that many people want to demand). And still, science and technology are getting better all the time. In terms of reporting, of course things can be improved, and they will be (no one would expect anything less) – but to infer that there is a world-wide conspiracy to topple the US, or install a world government, or that each and every scientist and scientific academy or institution is involved in a monumental cover up, is simply delusional and becoming more shill.

Using ‘debating’ tricks as well as you do is all very nice in a debating club, or on OLO. However, the science remains what it is at the end of the "debate". There really is no need to oppose the science with spindoctored vaudeville acts. If mainstream science was as weak as you infer, you would be able to propose a robust alternative explanation to the enhanced greenhouse effect – you can’t. Not even real contrarian scientists can – but that is not to say they shouldn’t keep trying. Bye bye.

Thanks to Phil M