How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Ray]

Just in case some people reading this thread are getting very anxious and worried about climate change, I'll post a photo I took recently in that ancient Khmer civilization in Cambodia which was destroyed by a very rapid change in climate about 800 years ago.

Despite a series of devastating droughts and floods, this beautiful lady is still sleeping peacefully on the forest floor. 

[JaapD]

There is sufficient scientific literature clarifying causes of global warming and even ‘if’ it is the case (no global warming of the complete planet but a shift in hotter and colder areas).

I don't think it is a matter of denial but we observe conflicts within the community of ‘scientific literature’. It used to be that if it is scientifically proven than it must be true, not anymore these days. What and whom should we trust? The ones that get most media attention?

Anyways, on a personal note I don’t mind if you’re pro or against, and if you’re in denial or not. But do not convince me with so called ‘scientific literature’ (being an engineer I understand the value of 'real' scientific data) that I should do this and can’t do that anymore and prescribe how I should live. I’m minding my own business and don’t interfere with you and your beliefs. I think the world would be much better off if more of us would act this way.


Regards,
Jaap.

[LesPalenik]

Just in case some people reading this thread are getting very anxious and worried about climate change, I'll post a photo I took recently in that ancient Khmer civilization in Cambodia which was destroyed by a very rapid change in climate about 800 years ago. Despite a series of devastating droughts and floods, this beautiful lady is still sleeping peacefully on the forest floor. 

Ray, you got my attention with the beautiful sleeping lady, but I can't see her anywhere and neither the forest floor. You must have been too aggressive with the cropping tool.

[BernardLanguillier]

I don't think it is a matter of denial but we observe conflicts within the community of ‘scientific literature’. It used to be that if it is scientifically proven than it must be true, not anymore these days. What and whom should we trust? The ones that get most media attention?

I don’t think much has changed on the science front. The people to believe remain those that are reviewed by their peers as working the right scientific way.

There is still the same process of natural selection of models to fit an experimental situation. At first various hypothesis are on the table. Then data are collected, hypothesis are tested, some are refuted, some survive.

This never totally back or white.

As far as global warming goes, we are clearly at a stage where the hypothesis “man has major impact on climate change” is accepted by the vast majority of credible scientists.

Per the article I linked to, what differs is the attention given by the media to other hypothesis that are not the preferred one as an output of the scientific process of convergence described above. Some content that is not accepted by the scientific community as being credible is passed down to people by some media without the required editorial comments. This conveys the false impression of a continuing debate.

Why is this the case? My guess is that this is a very touchy topic with broad potential economic impacts that is hitting some very powerful lobbies (the energy/oil one for instance). It is also touching people because some feel their luxury way of life could be under threat. Finally the US under Trump leadership has decided not to respect their engagement in the Paris treaty, which makes it the only large climato sceptic country in world.

So some media outlets are clearly corrupted into conveying messages opposing the scientific consensus to serve the interests of the said lobbies and/or of the Trump administration (Fox news comes to mind). Other are probably just saying what they think their readers want to read.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

Wikipedia disagrees with you... commenting about these articles about global cooling that "these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time".

Cheers,
Bernard

Wikipedia sometimes is an ass. It can disagree all it wants. This had nothing to do with "articles." These were the scientists writing the "scientific literature of the time."

[Ray]

Ray, you got my attention with the beautiful sleeping lady, but I can't see her anywhere and neither the forest floor. You must have been too aggressive with the cropping tool.

Oops! Sleeping by the side of a small stream in the forest. Can you see her now? 

[LesPalenik]

Yes, now I see her. She looks rather old.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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

Well, not for these folks:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/

Quoting:

"However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .

On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce."

[Paulo Bizarro]

The humanity can prosper also without wasting and abusing resources. As to burning and using wood, that's OK, since it is renewable resource, especially if the forests are properly managed.

I am all for not wasting and managing resources, but I am also realistic. As for burning wood or coal, burning natural gas is cleaner for the environment.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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

Please explain to me how can you discuss the press coverage of a certain topic - be it climate change or Cristiano Ronaldo's latest feat - without discussing the topic itself. You say the press coverage is biased in a certain direction, because the press must be corrupted to do so (Fox news etc). I suppose if the press coverage is biased, the topic is still debatable and uncertain?

It you want to stick to the press coverage, then there is really nothing to discuss. I can give another view:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/

[faberryman]

It you want to stick to the press coverage, then there is really nothing to discuss. I can give another view:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/

From your link:

The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C  [two one-hundredths of a degree] per decade..."

Actually, 0.2 degrees is two tenths not two one-hundredths of a degree. If they can't get basic math right, what does that say about the rest of their science? What a bunch of chuckleheads.

[Alan Klein]

I wish I am... first class preferably

This is the class you want to fly in:
"Nearly 1,500 private jets to land at climate change-focused Davos summit"
https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/nearly-1500-private-jets-to-land-at-climate-change-focused-davos-summit/


This is why the average guy thinks it's all a bunch of malarkey and hypocrisy.

[Alan Klein]

From your link:

Actually, 0.2 degrees increase spanning two decades is one tenth degree per decade not two one-hundredths. If they can't get basic math right, what does that say about the rest of their science? What a bunch of chuckleheads.

Another reason not to trust the media and chuckleheads.  That's the point.  I'd rather trust the opinions about cameras and photography that I get from members here than about climate change from the press.  Well, sometimes anyway.

[faberryman]

Another reason not to trust the media and chuckleheads.  That's the point.

The media and chuckleheads you are choosing not to trust were climate change deniers. Yet their position is the one you are advocating.

[Ray]

Yes, now I see her. She looks rather old.

Hmm! I'd say she looks quite young for an 800-year-old. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This is the class you want to fly in:
"Nearly 1,500 private jets to land at climate change-focused Davos summit"
https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/nearly-1500-private-jets-to-land-at-climate-change-focused-davos-summit/


This is why the average guy thinks it's all a bunch of malarkey and hypocrisy.

Thank you Alan, here we have another demonstration of misrepresentation through media, which is the topic of this thread.

https://www.weforum.org/focus/davos-2019

We're in a new economic era: Globalization 4.0. This is the theme of Davos 2019, which will bring together leaders from every sector and every part of the world to discuss how to cooperate on the challenges ahead.

The theme of the World Economic Forum 2019 in Davos was not Climate Change, it was Globalisation.

And while unfortunate for the additional emissions it triggered to get all these people in one place at approximately the same time, it did require travel across large distances (although most European participants had to travel shorter distances). But it's still a fraction of what travels through our skies every single day, and much of that for even more frivolous causes than trying to change the world in a better place.

Somehow, you were led to believe, or you were trying to make us believe, that it was just about Climate.

I wonder what media exposure, or scientific report, led you to do that.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

The media and chuckleheads you are choosing not to trust were climate change deniers. Yet their position is the one you are advocating.

There are "equal opportunity" chuckleheads on both sides who cherry pick their "evidence" and "facts".  Why should "my" side not be deceitful as well?

[Alan Klein]

Thank you Alan, here we have another demonstration of misrepresentation through media, which is the topic of this thread.

https://www.weforum.org/focus/davos-2019
The theme of the World Economic Forum 2019 in Davos was not Climate Change, it was Globalisation.

And while unfortunate for the additional emissions it triggered to get all these people in one place at approximately the same time, it did require travel across large distances (although most European participants had to travel shorter distances). But it's still a fraction of what travels through our skies every single day, and much of that for even more frivolous causes than trying to change the world in a better place.

Somehow, you were led to believe, or you were trying to make us believe, that it was just about Climate.

I wonder what media exposure, or scientific report, led you to do that.

Cheers,
Bart

If you're right, you confirmed my point again.  More fakes news from the press.  So how does the average headlines reader make sense of any of this?

[faberryman]

If you're right, you confirmed my point again.  More fakes news from the press.  So how does the average headlines reader make sense of any of this?

He doesn't rely on the New York Post, basically a tabloid, from whence the link you posted originates, for his information. You know, discernment of sources.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

He doesn't rely on the New York Post, basically a tabloid, from whence the link originates, for his information. You know, discernment of sources.

That's basically it, one needs to pick one's sources with a bit of care. It may also require a small investment in (quality) time.

Here's a more balanced news source of what went down:
https://www.reuters.com/davos/

But I'd prefer to not rely on just one source. And even if Reuters is a relatively unbiased source, it's not a peer reviewed scientific publication either...

Cheers,
Bart