This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.8 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Thursday 19 March 2009
ALARMISTS IGNORE THE INCONVENIENT FACTS
This article highlights the one-sided reporting of our weather, seeming to deliberately focus on events that support their cause and to play down or ignore the things that don't.
First, the author of this article admits "Does this [cold weather] prove fear of global warming is misplaced? On its own, probably not."
So then why the great interest? Why not tell us what would prove the "fear is misplaced" and why? Scientifically.
He goes on to say "Environmentalists, scientists who advance the warming theory, politicians and reporters never shy away from hyping those weather stories that support their beliefs."
It is incredibly disingenuous to lump scientists with every other interest group. In my experience credible scientists, who should have the greatest weight given to their opinions, are quick to point out that isolated events, hot or cold, do not prove or disprove AGW (or ACC for that matter).
The author also says "But they tend to ignore or explain away stories that might cast doubt."
This debunks your headline which says nothing about "explaining away". I suppose that "SCIENTISTS IGNORE OR EXPLAIN AWAY THE FACTS" is not quite as damning, eh?
I'm curious as to what you think is wrong with "explaining away" the stories. Shouldn't you be trying to find critical analysis of the scientists' explanation? Instead, we are lead to believe that any explanation is obviously flimsy and we shouldn't be so naive as to believe a word they say. Sounds like a classic propaganda move. Discredit the enemy without giving due consideration to their arguments.
The author claims "we were told again and again that this was proof warming was happening and it was going to be bad." I don't remember this actually happening, so I just did a google search for "katrina proves global warming" and this is some text I turned up:
"The chaotic nature of weather makes it impossible to prove that any single event such as Hurricane Katrina is due to global warming" (newscientist.com)
"That proves nothing, since nobody argues that global warming increases the..." (nytimes.com)
"we cannot prove whether global warming played a role in any..." (www.capitalresearch.org)
So it appears at first glance that this claim by the author unlikely, or at most an exaggeration.
Your claim that journalists "deliberately focus on events that support their cause and to play down or ignore the things that don't" could be said about your style of blogging. But it really proves nothing. Where is your hard science? This rubbish proves nothing.
Those who want to find the "hard Science" will find plenty of it on the links to this site. But you won't find much of it in the mainstream media.
This blog is a reference point for those who want to find these contrary scientific articles. If you just want to reinforce your own views then I recommend Real Science or one of the dozens of similar sites.
I have thousands of happy readers who want to read this blogs output.
Opinion pieces do not qualify as hard science. Where are the peer reviewed papers published in respected scientific journals?
The problem as I see it is that you can't go toe-to-toe with web sites such as Real Climate. They present a scientific argument, or discredit one from a skeptic, and the best you can do is claim "propaganda". Then you publish meaningless material like this with sensational and misleading headlines.
I'm not looking to reinforce my views. I'm looking to find the truth and debunk the untruths. If the truth is that human activity is not significantly affecting the climate then that's great, but I have to say, you are not convincing me. At all.
I have a host of scientific links including Climate Audit,Professors Bob Carter and John Christie. These are experts in their fields and if they don't convince you then so be it.
In the end it will come down to the weather we experience. If it isn't warming significantly then the public will remain unconvinced.
Peer-reviewed papers and dialogue between experts with differing views are more useful than these biased web sites or experts self-publishing their research. It's impossible for me to verify everything myself. You posted a debate recently (won by the scientists supporting climate change) which was valuable, but you pooh-poohed the result because you didn't like it.
I just wonder why you post rubbish like this, as it destroys your credibility. It must be cheer-leading since it shouldn't be useful in convincing anyone.
I'm not going to use popular opinion or day-to-day weather to make up my mind.
I'm not talking about "day to day weather", I'm looking at a whole decade with no warming in spite of apparent continued increase in atmospheric CO2. The recent "warming" itself which has given rise to all the alarmism has only taken place from 1976 to 1998, so all of it is so brief as to be meaningless in the context of the world's climate.
A brief look at climate history should lead any thinking person to the conclusion that we are much more likely to face another ice-age than serious global warming
What happens if the global average temperature jumps above the trend line next year? Will you do a back-flip? Would warming be back on? The relevant passage from the above article is:
"it's far more relevant that out of the 10 warmest years on record, at least seven have occurred in the 2000s -- again, according to the WMO."
Isn't it convenient to label anyone who disagrees with you 'thoughtless'? The biosphere, oceans and atmosphere have been altered naturally and by human activity. What makes you believe it will all play out in the same way?
As I said, the rise in temperature is 0.6C in a century. The "warmest years" are only very slightly warmer than the rest. This tiny difference cannot reasonably be described as a catastrophe. With the trend now negative any talk of impending disaster is not only misplaced, it is downright deceit.
Ther is no evidence that humans are altering the climate on a global scale. No one can forecast the future climate. I am not pretending to do so. I merely point out that calls of "catastrophe" are like crying "wolf".
This "tiny" warming has shifted entire growing zones, cleared the Northwest Passage of sea ice, and reduced snow falls used for irrigation and recreation. Your attempt to down play the temperature change is based only on our weak physiological ability to sense a change of 0.6C. You must remember that this is a global average and local conditions will vary to a greater extent. Neither does it necessarily convey extremes. During ice ages the global average drops only a handful of degrees, so by that measure 0.6C is significant. Positive feedback loops may take these changes to another level. That's not deceitful, it's science.
You like claiming that there's no evidence for opposing points of view, but it never stands up to scrutiny. Every time you make this claim I point out some basic observations that debunks it, which you refuse to acknowledge or refute. It is more likely that you filter out or ignore everything that contradicts your point of view. It's called confirmation bias.
Aren't you predicting the climate and calling "catastrophe" with talk of an ice age?
The difference is that I am not blaming man for a possible ice age. It is a distinct possibilty, and if it happens we will have to try and adapt to it in the same way that we would if there were a large warming. CO2 has never been proved to be the cause and that is a fact.
Certainly you are correct that there have been some serious local climate changes, but, as I have pointed out to you before, these have always occurred throughout history due to natural causes.
You said: "I merely point out that calls of "catastrophe" are like crying "wolf"."
In the story of the boy who cried wolf, the wolf was not caused by man either. So, how is calling a naturally caused ice-age not like crying wolf too? Surely we should be looking at the evidence for each call instead of making flippant remarks like this and making assumptions about our inability to affect such large changes.
Have a look at the following video. It describes work done to restore rainforest for the local economy and to provide Orangutan habitat. The climate around the area has improved significantly (rainfall and humidity up, temperature down), and it has also controlled destructive fires. We humans are responsible for the unprecedented deforestation that has occurred around the world [1]. Now explain to me why it is beyond our power to change the climate and conditions globally, and why it's relevant that changes occurred before humans intervened.
I support work to restore habitats and provide sanctuaries for endangered species. I also accept that in local areas humans can affect the climate. However there is no world-wide effect on climate cuased by these local issues. The CO2 theory has been jumped on to try to provide one, but the facts don't support it.
We cannot change the climate globally because the climate is changing in different ways in different places; some are getting wetter, others drier; some colder and others hotter. In fact global average temperature is really a rather misleading statistic (as well as being an impossible one to measure accurately).
For the above reasons we should stop pretending that we can affect the climate globally in any meaningful way and instead concentrate on adapting to the major changes and trying to mitigate on a local basis.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. It's all hand waving, diversions and assumptions.
The 'global climate' is made up of every regional climate. If we can affect a regional climate (as you admit), it follows that we can affect the collective. Bill Mollison points out that cloud and rainfall patterns over Europe have changed since the 1970s as deforestation and particles emitted from industry have adversely affected cloud seeding [1]. Now look at the particle stream coming from Asia - the pollution reaches the US, covering the North Pacific Ocean [2]! That there are local variations in how changes have occurred or will take place is irrelevant. Widespread reforestation and integrated farming practices would have an overwhelmingly positive impact on people's lives and the climate. Even if it has no climatic effect, it's clear that it's a mitigation strategy for climate change as you concede we should be pursuing. It also provides an alternative to Western style growth economics, the collapse of which would otherwise devastate lives.
You are the master of sensation headlines.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the author of this article admits "Does this [cold weather] prove fear of global warming is misplaced? On its own, probably not."
So then why the great interest? Why not tell us what would prove the "fear is misplaced" and why? Scientifically.
He goes on to say "Environmentalists, scientists who advance the warming theory, politicians and reporters never shy away from hyping those weather stories that support their beliefs."
It is incredibly disingenuous to lump scientists with every other interest group. In my experience credible scientists, who should have the greatest weight given to their opinions, are quick to point out that isolated events, hot or cold, do not prove or disprove AGW (or ACC for that matter).
The author also says "But they tend to ignore or explain away stories that might cast doubt."
This debunks your headline which says nothing about "explaining away". I suppose that "SCIENTISTS IGNORE OR EXPLAIN AWAY THE FACTS" is not quite as damning, eh?
I'm curious as to what you think is wrong with "explaining away" the stories. Shouldn't you be trying to find critical analysis of the scientists' explanation? Instead, we are lead to believe that any explanation is obviously flimsy and we shouldn't be so naive as to believe a word they say. Sounds like a classic propaganda move. Discredit the enemy without giving due consideration to their arguments.
The author claims "we were told again and again that this was proof warming was happening and it was going to be bad." I don't remember this actually happening, so I just did a google search for "katrina proves global warming" and this is some text I turned up:
"The chaotic nature of weather makes it impossible to prove that any single event such as Hurricane Katrina is due to global warming" (newscientist.com)
"That proves nothing, since nobody argues that global warming increases the..." (nytimes.com)
"we cannot prove whether global warming played a role in any..." (www.capitalresearch.org)
So it appears at first glance that this claim by the author unlikely, or at most an exaggeration.
Your claim that journalists "deliberately focus on events that support their cause and to play down or ignore the things that don't" could be said about your style of blogging. But it really proves nothing. Where is your hard science? This rubbish proves nothing.
Those who want to find the "hard Science" will find plenty of it on the links to this site. But you won't find much of it in the mainstream media.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is a reference point for those who want to find these contrary scientific articles. If you just want to reinforce your own views then I recommend Real Science or one of the dozens of similar sites.
I have thousands of happy readers who want to read this blogs output.
*I meant "Real Climate", not Real Science.
ReplyDeleteOpinion pieces do not qualify as hard science. Where are the peer reviewed papers published in respected scientific journals?
ReplyDeleteThe problem as I see it is that you can't go toe-to-toe with web sites such as Real Climate. They present a scientific argument, or discredit one from a skeptic, and the best you can do is claim "propaganda". Then you publish meaningless material like this with sensational and misleading headlines.
I'm not looking to reinforce my views. I'm looking to find the truth and debunk the untruths. If the truth is that human activity is not significantly affecting the climate then that's great, but I have to say, you are not convincing me. At all.
I have a host of scientific links including Climate Audit,Professors Bob Carter and John Christie. These are experts in their fields and if they don't convince you then so be it.
ReplyDeleteIn the end it will come down to the weather we experience. If it isn't warming significantly then the public will remain unconvinced.
Peer-reviewed papers and dialogue between experts with differing views are more useful than these biased web sites or experts self-publishing their research. It's impossible for me to verify everything myself. You posted a debate recently (won by the scientists supporting climate change) which was valuable, but you pooh-poohed the result because you didn't like it.
ReplyDeleteI just wonder why you post rubbish like this, as it destroys your credibility. It must be cheer-leading since it shouldn't be useful in convincing anyone.
I'm not going to use popular opinion or day-to-day weather to make up my mind.
Here's some interesting reading on the use of cherry-picked events, weighing evidence and critical thinking:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002660.html
Note the discussion on your cherished belief that there has been no warming for a decade.
I'm not talking about "day to day weather", I'm looking at a whole decade with no warming in spite of apparent continued increase in atmospheric CO2. The recent "warming" itself which has given rise to all the alarmism has only taken place from 1976 to 1998, so all of it is so brief as to be meaningless in the context of the world's climate.
ReplyDeleteA brief look at climate history should lead any thinking person to the conclusion that we are much more likely to face another ice-age than serious global warming
What happens if the global average temperature jumps above the trend line next year? Will you do a back-flip? Would warming be back on? The relevant passage from the above article is:
ReplyDelete"it's far more relevant that out of the 10 warmest years on record, at least seven have occurred in the 2000s -- again, according to the WMO."
Isn't it convenient to label anyone who disagrees with you 'thoughtless'? The biosphere, oceans and atmosphere have been altered naturally and by human activity. What makes you believe it will all play out in the same way?
As I said, the rise in temperature is 0.6C in a century. The "warmest years" are only very slightly warmer than the rest. This tiny difference cannot reasonably be described as a catastrophe. With the trend now negative any talk of impending disaster is not only misplaced, it is downright deceit.
ReplyDeleteTher is no evidence that humans are altering the climate on a global scale. No one can forecast the future climate. I am not pretending to do so. I merely point out that calls of "catastrophe" are like crying "wolf".
This "tiny" warming has shifted entire growing zones, cleared the Northwest Passage of sea ice, and reduced snow falls used for irrigation and recreation. Your attempt to down play the temperature change is based only on our weak physiological ability to sense a change of 0.6C. You must remember that this is a global average and local conditions will vary to a greater extent. Neither does it necessarily convey extremes. During ice ages the global average drops only a handful of degrees, so by that measure 0.6C is significant. Positive feedback loops may take these changes to another level. That's not deceitful, it's science.
ReplyDeleteYou like claiming that there's no evidence for opposing points of view, but it never stands up to scrutiny. Every time you make this claim I point out some basic observations that debunks it, which you refuse to acknowledge or refute. It is more likely that you filter out or ignore everything that contradicts your point of view. It's called confirmation bias.
Aren't you predicting the climate and calling "catastrophe" with talk of an ice age?
The difference is that I am not blaming man for a possible ice age. It is a distinct possibilty, and if it happens we will have to try and adapt to it in the same way that we would if there were a large warming. CO2 has never been proved to be the cause and that is a fact.
ReplyDeleteCertainly you are correct that there have been some serious local climate changes, but, as I have pointed out to you before, these have always occurred throughout history due to natural causes.
You said: "I merely point out that calls of "catastrophe" are like crying "wolf"."
ReplyDeleteIn the story of the boy who cried wolf, the wolf was not caused by man either. So, how is calling a naturally caused ice-age not like crying wolf too? Surely we should be looking at the evidence for each call instead of making flippant remarks like this and making assumptions about our inability to affect such large changes.
Have a look at the following video. It describes work done to restore rainforest for the local economy and to provide Orangutan habitat. The climate around the area has improved significantly (rainfall and humidity up, temperature down), and it has also controlled destructive fires. We humans are responsible for the unprecedented deforestation that has occurred around the world [1]. Now explain to me why it is beyond our power to change the climate and conditions globally, and why it's relevant that changes occurred before humans intervened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vfuCPFb8wk&feature=player_embedded
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
I support work to restore habitats and provide sanctuaries for endangered species. I also accept that in local areas humans can affect the climate. However there is no world-wide effect on climate cuased by these local issues. The CO2 theory has been jumped on to try to provide one, but the facts don't support it.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot change the climate globally because the climate is changing in different ways in different places; some are getting wetter, others drier; some colder and others hotter. In fact global average temperature is really a rather misleading statistic (as well as being an impossible one to measure accurately).
For the above reasons we should stop pretending that we can affect the climate globally in any meaningful way and instead concentrate on adapting to the major changes and trying to mitigate on a local basis.
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. It's all hand waving, diversions and assumptions.
ReplyDeleteThe 'global climate' is made up of every regional climate. If we can affect a regional climate (as you admit), it follows that we can affect the collective. Bill Mollison points out that cloud and rainfall patterns over Europe have changed since the 1970s as deforestation and particles emitted from industry have adversely affected cloud seeding [1]. Now look at the particle stream coming from Asia - the pollution reaches the US, covering the North Pacific Ocean [2]! That there are local variations in how changes have occurred or will take place is irrelevant. Widespread reforestation and integrated farming practices would have an overwhelmingly positive impact on people's lives and the climate. Even if it has no climatic effect, it's clear that it's a mitigation strategy for climate change as you concede we should be pursuing. It also provides an alternative to Western style growth economics, the collapse of which would otherwise devastate lives.
[1] http://www.permacultureplants.net/Audio/audio.htm
[2] http://china-environmental-news.blogspot.com/2006/07/chinas-growing-pollution-reaches-us.html