Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 54   Go Down

Author Topic: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science  (Read 50344 times)

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #40 on: August 14, 2019, 01:30:06 pm »

There are more forests today in Canada than there were a hundred years ago.
So we must be doing something right.

Yes, we are. Unfortunately, the Brazilians and a few other nations don't.
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #41 on: August 14, 2019, 01:37:02 pm »

The point about climate change isn't that it's all death and destruction. The point is that it's change, substantial change, and that with substantial changes of this character there is a lot of death and destruction. Yes, life will probably find a way in the new Earth, but it's going to be different.

The salient question for *me* if whether it will include homo sapiens and on a more personal note exactly which of them, if it includes any.

There's quite a nice park at Ground Zero in Nagasaki. This doesn't mean that nuclear bombs are all fun and games.
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2019, 02:00:37 pm »

The LuLa Coffee Corner has selected a little cadre of like-minded people who do most of the talking, sharing their links and information with one another. Sure, there are some nay sayers, but the cadre has learned to mostly ignore them. The naysayers have, for the most part, conceded the ground to the cadre because, ultimately, who cares?
And, of course, if you give a man enough rope, he will eventually hang himself.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 04:12:15 pm by faberryman »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2019, 02:10:15 pm »

The point about climate change isn't that it's all death and destruction. The point is that it's change, substantial change, and that with substantial changes of this character there is a lot of death and destruction. Yes, life will probably find a way in the new Earth, but it's going to be different.

The salient question for *me* if whether it will include homo sapiens and on a more personal note exactly which of them, if it includes any.

There's quite a nice park at Ground Zero in Nagasaki. This doesn't mean that nuclear bombs are all fun and games.

Since the Ice Age, warming has been generally good for civilization and Mankind. Why do you think another couple of degrees is suddenly going to reverse that? 

I would think generally it's going to get even better.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2019, 02:34:41 pm »

Since the Ice Age, warming has been generally good for civilization and Mankind. Why do you think another couple of degrees is suddenly going to reverse that? 

I would think generally it's going to get even better.

Perhaps you could start another thread on this topic?

Cheers,
Bernard

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2019, 02:46:05 pm »

Since the Ice Age, warming has been generally good for civilization and Mankind. Why do you think another couple of degrees is suddenly going to reverse that? I would think generally it's going to get even better.
So said the frog in the pot being brought to a boil.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #46 on: August 14, 2019, 02:48:42 pm »

"Majority" - depends on the source.
"Agree" - not really. There is plenty of disagreement.
"Probably" - makes sense.

And then you go from the above to "fact". Your last paragraph makes no sense. You want to focus the discussion on the disconnect you mention, but without discussing the underlying subject. There is no large agreement; and the topic is still debated, as it should be.

I understand that you are not interested in debating the press coverage but global warming itself. Why not do so in one of the existing thread on this topic?

Science is very often probabilistic because the world is. Using the lack of a 100% probability to dispute an hypothesis would ground planes and send us back to stone age.

The level of agreement in the scientific community based on the huge amount of best in class science applied to the high attention topic of global warming is as good as it gets and, again, we are as close to a consensus as we’ll ever be.

But your perception that we aren’t probably results from the very biased media coverage the article I am linking to is demonstrating. You have the impression there still a lot of debate precisely because of this.

I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 03:00:38 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #47 on: August 14, 2019, 05:59:02 pm »

I understand that you are not interested in debating the press coverage but global warming itself. Why not do so in one of the existing thread on this topic?

Science is very often probabilistic because the world is. Using the lack of a 100% probability to dispute an hypothesis would ground planes and send us back to stone age.

The level of agreement in the scientific community based on the huge amount of best in class science applied to the high attention topic of global warming is as good as it gets and, again, we are as close to a consensus as we’ll ever be.

But your perception that we aren’t probably results from the very biased media coverage the article I am linking to is demonstrating. You have the impression there still a lot of debate precisely because of this.

I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, First you complain that opinions about the legitimacy of global warming belongs in one of the other threads, not in this one.  Then you go on to give your opinion in this thread why people who still believe global warming is hokum are politically inspired, ethically malignant and intellectually dishonest.You seem to want to have it both ways what this thread is about.    It's all very confusing.  Make up your mind.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2019, 06:02:46 pm »

Seems pretty clear though.

This thread is about media coverage.

Cheers,
Bernard

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2019, 06:19:57 pm »

Seems pretty clear though.

This thread is about media coverage.

Cheers,
Bernard
What does your following quote have to do with media coverage?  It seems just an offhand insult to people who believe a particular way and nothing to do with media?

Quote
"I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids."

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2019, 10:12:09 pm »

I understand that you are not interested in debating the press coverage but global warming itself. Why not do so in one of the existing thread on this topic?

Science is very often probabilistic because the world is. Using the lack of a 100% probability to dispute an hypothesis would ground planes and send us back to stone age.

The level of agreement in the scientific community based on the huge amount of best in class science applied to the high attention topic of global warming is as good as it gets and, again, we are as close to a consensus as we’ll ever be.

But your perception that we aren’t probably results from the very biased media coverage the article I am linking to is demonstrating. You have the impression there still a lot of debate precisely because of this.

I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids.

Cheers,
Bernard

Okay, so let's debate the press coverage. My impression is that from the beginning the main stream media, and many environmental groups, have misrepresented the science behind anthropogenic climate change in order to get political action on cleaning up the environment.

I'll repeat the relevant comment from climate activist Prof. Stephen Schneider.

"..as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts."
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."


This describes the problem far better than the article in your original post, Bernard. That article begins with an unscientific assumption that the vast majority of scientists working in the field of climatology believe that there is sound evidence that human activity is the main cause of the current warming.

To quote further from that article you linked:

"Historians of science have detailed the political origins of the CCC movement, documenting how its strategic efforts succeeded in distorting the science-based narrative on multiple fronts, e.g., by promoting the idea that there is a lack of scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic, despite the fact that objective research has found little evidence for such a claim. One study comparing consensus scientists with unconvinced scientists found that the 2–3% of researchers unconvinced by evidence for anthropogenic CC were not only small in group size but also had substantially lower levels of authority in the CC literature."

So let's examine the objectivity of this research which supports the often-quoted 97% consensus. Papers by John Cook, founder of the Skepticalscience web site, are often referenced at the end of the article. Here's one which describes the methodology used to support the 97% consensus claim.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

From the abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

In other words, only 33.6% of the papers expressed a position on AGW. Of that 33.6% an overwhelming majority endorsed AGW, but definitely not an overwhelming majority of all the peer-reviewed papers that were examined.

The true consensus from this specific study is 32.6%. This is just one example of how the media distort the scientific reality in order to create a false sense of certainty. Is it any wonder there will be a backlash and claims of scientific fraud and conspiracy in other sections of the media?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #51 on: August 14, 2019, 10:55:43 pm »

What does your following quote have to do with media coverage?  It seems just an offhand insult to people who believe a particular way and nothing to do with media?

If you wish to discuss this aspect further please start another thread.

Cheers,
Bernard

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #52 on: August 15, 2019, 01:20:14 am »

Okay, so let's debate the press coverage. My impression is that from the beginning the main stream media, and many environmental groups, have misrepresented the science behind anthropogenic climate change in order to get political action on cleaning up the environment.

I'll repeat the relevant comment from climate activist Prof. Stephen Schneider.

"..as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts."
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."


This describes the problem far better than the article in your original post, Bernard. That article begins with an unscientific assumption that the vast majority of scientists working in the field of climatology believe that there is sound evidence that human activity is the main cause of the current warming.

To quote further from that article you linked:

"Historians of science have detailed the political origins of the CCC movement, documenting how its strategic efforts succeeded in distorting the science-based narrative on multiple fronts, e.g., by promoting the idea that there is a lack of scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic, despite the fact that objective research has found little evidence for such a claim. One study comparing consensus scientists with unconvinced scientists found that the 2–3% of researchers unconvinced by evidence for anthropogenic CC were not only small in group size but also had substantially lower levels of authority in the CC literature."

So let's examine the objectivity of this research which supports the often-quoted 97% consensus. Papers by John Cook, founder of the Skepticalscience web site, are often referenced at the end of the article. Here's one which describes the methodology used to support the 97% consensus claim.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

From the abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

In other words, only 33.6% of the papers expressed a position on AGW. Of that 33.6% an overwhelming majority endorsed AGW, but definitely not an overwhelming majority of all the peer-reviewed papers that were examined.

The true consensus from this specific study is 32.6%. This is just one example of how the media distort the scientific reality in order to create a false sense of certainty. Is it any wonder there will be a backlash and claims of scientific fraud and conspiracy in other sections of the media?

I already addressed this issue in reply 35

This article - from a not-particularly "green" source -  is relevant. It concludes that a large majority (at least 80%) of scientists agree that climate change is human-caused.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1081de311576
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #53 on: August 15, 2019, 01:48:14 am »

Again, Les, for every negative, there is a positive, maybe many positives.   All these activities have advanced man.  We no longer live in caves by an open fire to protect us against wild animals that might devour us during the night.  At least for most of us.  That's because of advances like mining, home construction, dam created electricity, dam created fresh drinking water, etc that does modify nature coincidentally. We are species part of earth and use its materials.  I'm not suggesting we be bad stewards of the environment.  Only that doing these things have beneficial outcomes for man as a species.  We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.   

Indeed, some dams can be quite beneficial. About two hours from my home is a small town called Minden with a lake and Gull river flowing out of it. A small dam with lift gates controls the outflow of the water into a rocky river bed which was further modified with large boulders to create a world-class whitewater course. A few years ago, they held the Pan-Am Games kayak and canoe slalom races there. Great stretch of whitewater. In my younger days, I used to play also in those rapids (see below).

However, in 2013 Minden experienced 100-year flood which damaged not only the dam but also some of the large rocks and cement blocks that were controlling the river flow. The recent repairs and construction of one half of the dam has left this scenic attraction in bad shape and even a paved road was damaged. The strong current moved some of the large rocks from the river right onto the parking lot. The infrastructure installed for the Pan-Am Games was crashed and there is no money to re-construct it.

The river was flooded again in 2017 and 2019. Some say that as a result of the global climate change (which could have been caused by human activities as Jeremy suggests in the post above).   
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #54 on: August 15, 2019, 02:50:56 am »

From the abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

In other words, only 33.6% of the papers expressed a position on AGW. Of that 33.6% an overwhelming majority endorsed AGW, but definitely not an overwhelming majority of all the peer-reviewed papers that were examined.

The true consensus from this specific study is 32.6%. This is just one example of how the media distort the scientific reality in order to create a false sense of certainty. Is it any wonder there will be a backlash and claims of scientific fraud and conspiracy in other sections of the media?

Ray,

I am sorry, but with all the good will in the world, I fail to see how this disproofs the point that press coverage gives too much air time to sources not aligned with the dominant opinion that global warming is caused by man activity.

All it shows is that among articles devoted to global warming, only 1/3 were focused on the question whether it is man driven or not. You will agree with me that there are many other aspects of interest about global warming also and it is in no way surprising to see that 2/3 of the articles were interested in those.

Among those addressing the question though, close to 97% indeed conclude that it is man driven. That's a number even higher than the one I was expecting to see. 80% would be more than enough to consider this a wide spread agreement.

But again, still not related to the way media covers these 32.6% vs 0.7% right?

One you introductory point, yes, I would agree that some of the scientists alarmed about the impacts of global warming and convinced that human activity is playing an important role, may have taken the drama a little too high. But I do understand their position. Even if Alan is certainly right that there may be some positive sides to it for some people, the overall global impact seems to be pretty negative.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 02:56:35 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #55 on: August 15, 2019, 09:40:05 am »

Ray,

I am sorry, but with all the good will in the world, I fail to see how this disproofs the point that press coverage gives too much air time to sources not aligned with the dominant opinion that global warming is caused by man activity.

Bernard,
I've never got the impression in Australia that the press gives too much air time to the contrarians. In fact, my experience has been the opposite, which is why initially, about 15 years ago, I used to accept the claims that the current warming was unnatural and caused mainly by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which could have serious consequences for the future.

However, that might have been because I tend to watch or listen to the more serious programs on Australian TV and radio, which included interviews of scientists such as James Lovelock and James Hansen, and documentaries by people like David Attenborough who seems very convinced that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat.

As a result of watching or listening to such interviews and documentaries, I became very interested in the general subject of climate change and ocean acidification, from a scientific and historical perspective rather than just the perspective of the personal opinion of an individual scientist interviewed in the media.

As a consequence I began searching for published scientific papers on Google Scholar, relating to particular climate issues, and began participating in forum discussions where alternative interpretations of the data and evidence were discussed.

As a result of my own investigations and effort, I became aware of many of the "doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts" which were never mentioned in the Media in Australia when climate scientists were interviewed.

I became aware that the alarming claims of ocean acidification were actually represented by a small reduction in the average alkalinity of the ocean surfaces from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 over a 150 year period. (A pH of 7 being neutral, and below 7 being acidic, a fact which I already knew because I've done some gardening.)

I became aware, from reading at least the abstracts of research papers, that the pH of the oceans varies considerably; far more than an average change of 0.1 pH. It changes according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, and the depth of the ocean.

I became aware of the existence of warming and cooling periods in the past, such as the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and that the current warm period is warm in relation to the Little Ice Age which ended about the time the industrial revolution took off.

I discovered that farmers have been injecting CO2 into their greenhouses for many decades because it significantly increases the crop growth.

I discovered that the constant claims in the media that extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods and droughts, will get worse as a result of CO2 emissions, are not based upon sound evidence. The AR5 IPCC report, published in 2013, stated clearly that there was 'low confidence' (due to lack of evidence) that floods, droughts and hurricanes had been increasing in either severity or frequency since 1950, on a gloabal scale. However, they mentioned that there was 'high confidence' that megadroughts during the previous 500 years had been worse than any recent droughts in the 20th century.

The current IPCC report is still a work in progress, due out maybe in 2021, but there have been recent interim reports which confirm that there is still a lack of evidence to support a claim that floods, droughts and hurricanes have increased since 1950, globally.

I could go on and on but I'll leave it there for the time being. I'll finish with the advice, if you are genuinely interested in the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and want to get to the truth, then you need to read both sides of the arguments and use your nous and rationality to determine what makes the most sense.

A relevant analogy, although limited as most analogies are, might be the choice of a new camera. Do you choose to buy a particular model of camera simply because an expert photographer recommends it, or do you dig into the details, consider alternative opinions, and look at scientific test results on sites such as DXOMARK?
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #56 on: August 15, 2019, 09:55:25 am »

I'll finish with the advice, if you are genuinely interested in the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and want to get to the truth, then you need to read both sides of the arguments and use your nous and rationality to determine what makes the most sense.


And how many of us have the necessary scientific background and specialist knowledge required to rationally determine what makes "sense"?
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #57 on: August 15, 2019, 09:58:44 am »

I'll finish with the advice, if you are genuinely interested in the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and want to get to the truth, then you need to read both sides of the arguments and use your nous and rationality to determine what makes the most sense.


And how many of us have the necessary scientific background and specialist knowledge required to rationally determine what makes "sense"?

Very few, which is probably why it's best if those who don't, on either side, keep quiet.

Jeremy
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #58 on: August 15, 2019, 10:17:49 am »

What do you think that chances of that are, Jeremy? Were I a bookie I'd be taking bets.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #59 on: August 15, 2019, 10:26:47 am »

What do you think that chances of that are, Jeremy?

Evidently zero.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 54   Go Up