Resisting Climate Hysteria

[cynic]

That's a bit disappointing; greening is obviously not keeping pace with the incipient carbon dioxide poising we must all be suffering, could explain some behavioural challenges....might just be plants and bugs left in the end. I'm also guessing that all that new green is soaking rainwater instead of recycling its way back into the increasingly salty rivers, aquafers, fisheries, etc?

It seems likely that it is keeping pace as increased populations of flora and fauna will demand a higher presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increases ideally need to be measured per capita, rather than in absolute terms, before determining the existence of problems.

Given that flora and fauna retain water, I cannot help but wonder whether melting icecaps might be part of nature's effort to accommodate our increasing demand for this vital fluid.

 

[Knobby22]

It seems likely that it is keeping pace as increased populations of flora and fauna will demand a higher presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increases ideally need to be measured per capita, rather than in absolute terms, before determining the existence of problems.

Given that flora and fauna retain water, I cannot help but wonder whether melting icecaps might be part of nature's effort to accommodate our increasing demand for this vital fluid.

Ahhh....Gaia theory

 

[explod]

It seems likely that it is keeping pace as increased populations of flora and fauna will demand a higher presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increases ideally need to be measured per capita, rather than in absolute terms, before determining the existence of problems.

Given that flora and fauna retain water, I cannot help but wonder whether melting icecaps might be part of nature's effort to accommodate our increasing demand for this vital fluid.

Of course, but how long can this hold out. The oceans for a long time have absorbed our heat but it appears we are reaching the tipping point now (reef for one)

We are playing with fire.

 

[cynic]

Of course, but how long can this hold out. The oceans for a long time have absorbed our heat but it appears we are reaching the tipping point now (reef for one)

We are playing with fire.

To me it's more a question of what size populace can this planet comfortably sustain. Change seems to be an inevitability of life. The challenge to humanity's survival is typically met by a willingness to adapt rather than resist.

 

[Tisme]

I hear India has 250 million people looking down the barrel of no water as the drought bites hard on the western side. They are even sending in water trains now as the well dry up.

 

[Joules MM1]

climate-scientists-are-now-grading-climate-journalism

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...w-grading-climate-journalism?CMP=share_btn_tw

example excerpted:

But there’s more work to be done. Toward the end of the year the scientists carried out a series of evaluations of some of Forbes magazine’s reporting on climate change. The results give an idea of the scale of the problem we’re tackling. Two of the magazine’s most popular articles for 2015, one of which attracted almost one million hits, turned out to be profoundly inaccurate and misleading. Both articles, reviewed by nine and twelve scientists, unanimously received the lowest possible scientific credibility rating. This rarely occurs, and just in case you’re wondering, yes, the scientists do score articles independently: ratings are only revealed once all scientists have completed their review.

 

[basilio]

climate-scientists-are-now-grading-climate-journalism

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...w-grading-climate-journalism?CMP=share_btn_tw

example excerpted:

Now that is an interesting story. Having Climate Scientists independently critique the the accuracy of reports in the media.

It was absolutely no surprise that James Taylor's stories managed to score rock bottom credibility. He is epic in this field.

Recently, scientists analyzed some of Forbes’ most influential climate articles for 2015. While one article was rated as highly accurate, two articles were found to be deeply inaccurate and misleading by the more than 20 scientists who reviewed them. In both cases, all scientists independently gave the articles the lowest possible scientific credibility rating.

These two articles, both written by Forbes contributor James Taylor, include: “Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You,” which has 125,000 views; and “Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat,” which has more than 750,000 views as of December 9 2015 and is still being pushed to tens of thousands of new readers every week – which gives an idea of the scale of the problem we’re tackling.

Dr David Bahr, an associate professor at Regis University and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, was one of the scientists who analyzed Taylor’s “Top 10 lies” article, and commented on its overall scientific credibility:

“I have rarely read such a misleading and factually inaccurate article,” he wrote. “This is not science journalism and has no place in a magazine that purports to be a leading source of reliable news. It cannot qualify as an informed or informative opinion piece, and Forbes does their readers a great disservice by allowing the publication of blatant falsehoods.”

Taylor is one of the primary contributors to Forbes’ climate change coverage, and yet based on his stories his basic climate science knowledge appears to be seriously flawed. In addition to being inaccurate, these articles are deeply misleading, as noted by Dr Julienne Stroeve in “Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”: “The article is misleading and completely incorrect. It appears that the article is lumping together sea ice and ice sheets, although perhaps the author does not know the difference between sea ice and the ice on Greenland and Antarctica.”

Taylor discusses land and sea ice interchangeably, which is “a fundamental error, equivalent in other fields to confusing house and senate, or an artery and vein”, according to Dr Ken Mankoff.

In his article Taylor argues that “Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979.”

This is one out of many arguments that proves to be incorrect:

Dr Robert Grumbine comments: “Incorrect on at least two levels. What he compares is ice at a particular time in 1979 with ice at a particular time in 2015. Today, the figure is negative; ice is again below the long term average, and below values at any time in 1979.
The second and more important level on which this is wrong is that for examining long term trends, scientists use all the data, not just two particular days out of 36 (and growing) years of data. The long term trend is negative.”

Dr Twila Moon comments: “This is flat out false. NASA has an excellent visualization and graph of Arctic sea ice decline since 1979 here. Antarctic sea ice, on the other hand, has had some expansion. However, this expansion does not negate climate change, as explained in this news article.”

So far, scientists have only analyzed a few articles from Forbes. More will be needed to confidently assess the overall credibility level of the outlet when it comes to climate change coverage. However, because these two inaccurate articles are among the most popular of the year, this is already a very significant result.

Though Taylor is a contributor and not a staff writer, we believe Forbes has a responsibility to ensure that the site is being used to disseminate accurate journalism, not factually inaccurate information, as is the case with both Taylor’s articles.

“This article simply ignores the essential principles of good scientific journalism: Truth and accuracy, independence, and impartiality. The article is plagued with inaccurate information and false statements about climate and glacier change.” – Dr. Tobias Sauter commenting on the “Updated NASA Data” article.

Views of Forbes’ climate articles hover around 10,000. The mass audience that these articles have reached, which is still increasing even 7 months after publication, suggests that these articles are being actively pushed to a large audience. This raises the question of whether Forbes, an established and esteemed publication, is being used to broadcast inaccurate information about climate change and push a political agenda.

http://climatefeedback.org/popular-forbes-climate-coverage-found-inaccurate-and-misleading/

 

[explod]

climate-scientists-are-now-grading-climate-journalism

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...w-grading-climate-journalism?CMP=share_btn_tw

example excerpted:

Thanks for putting this up Joules

 

[Smurf1976]

Now that is an interesting story. Having Climate Scientists independently critique the the accuracy of reports in the media.

Like most people there aren't many things I'd regard myself as an actual expert on. Pick any random subject and I known nothing or at most a bit about it. Same with most people.

What I do know however is that whenever I read something in the mainstream media about power generation, something I do know rather a lot about, there are usually some errors or at best omissions. If they do get it right then that's because they just quoted a press release in most situations.

So it has long been my assumption that if there's lots of errors in reporting about something I can critique then most likely there are errors in the reporting of any other technical or scientific matter as well. It would seem rather odd if the only thing the media were getting wrong just happened to be the only one I can personally assess and know what's wrong and what's right. Almost certainly there are errors or at least omissions in other things as well.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that the mainstream media has moved strongly away from "hard" reporting of facts and data and toward "soft" reporting that lacks detailed information or facts. Presumably that's because whoever is writing the story doesn't understand it well enough to actually include that information in a sensible manner. Climate would likely be the same.

 

[Tisme]

What I do know however is that whenever I read something in the mainstream media about power generation, something I do know rather a lot about, there are usually some errors or at best omissions. If they do get it right then that's because they just quoted a press release in most situations.

I featured in a half page spread a short while ago and subsequently on the TV a day or so later and I'm still wondering how my solitary works somehow managed to become a shared enterprise with people I don't even know They did misquote in a very flattering manner however and I did look rather dapper on the idiot box, so I'm OK with the press in those circumstances.

 

[SirRumpole]

I featured in a half page spread a short while ago and subsequently on the TV a day or so later and I'm still wondering how my solitary works somehow managed to become a shared enterprise with people I don't even know They did misquote in a very flattering manner however and I did look rather dapper on the idiot box, so I'm OK with the press in those circumstances.

Are you going to keep us guessing or post a YouTube ?

 

[SirRumpole]

One thing I've noticed over the years is that the mainstream media has moved strongly away from "hard" reporting of facts and data and toward "soft" reporting that lacks detailed information or facts. Presumably that's because whoever is writing the story doesn't understand it well enough to actually include that information in a sensible manner. Climate would likely be the same.

Too much competition for the news stories these days. The 24 hour news cycle where the only thing that matters is getting the news out first and worry about accuracy later.

That's why we get cadet journos on tv saying things like "details are sketchy at the moment, we talked to neighbors and no one knows what's going on..."

I think it's a function of the public's willingness and ability to absorb details of news stories in their busy day as well.

Some more detail about why the French submarine bid was better than the others would have been good, but the subject was only treated superficially on the TV reports I saw. No doubt there is a more detailed report somewhere, if I could be bothered looking.

 

[luutzu]

I featured in a half page spread a short while ago and subsequently on the TV a day or so later and I'm still wondering how my solitary works somehow managed to become a shared enterprise with people I don't even know They did misquote in a very flattering manner however and I did look rather dapper on the idiot box, so I'm OK with the press in those circumstances.

So this is what you look like.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/queenslands-clanwilliam-health-portfolio-tipped-for-listing/news-story/9fa8d0a3f618d688f7c2e93d8b839c65

 

[SirRumpole]

So this is what you look like.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/queenslands-clanwilliam-health-portfolio-tipped-for-listing/news-story/9fa8d0a3f618d688f7c2e93d8b839c65

I'm not going to pay 8 bucks to see him !

 

[luutzu]

I'm not going to pay 8 bucks to see him !

Was jk. Some story about old people, ha ha.

 

[cynic]

I featured in a half page spread a short while ago and subsequently on the TV a day or so later and I'm still wondering how my solitary works somehow managed to become a shared enterprise with people I don't even know They did misquote in a very flattering manner however and I did look rather dapper on the idiot box, so I'm OK with the press in those circumstances.

That's lucky! Most footage of me usually ends up on the cutting room floor.

As for others claiming ownership of solitary works, that's really no mystery and very much a compliment when one remembers that "failure is an orphan and success has many fathers".

 

[Tisme]

Are you going to keep us guessing or post a YouTube ?

Of no importance to my significant magnificence can you imagine the hate mail I'd get from this forum alone!!!

Qanda members, socialist and liberal alike would be building a bonfire

 

[luutzu]

Of no importance to my significant magnificence can you imagine the hate mail I'd get from this forum alone!!!

Qanda members, socialist and liberal alike would be building a bonfire

Come on McG, let us bask in your glory.

 

[qldfrog]

Of no importance to my significant magnificence can you imagine the hate mail I'd get from this forum alone!!!

Qanda members, socialist and liberal alike would be building a bonfire

Please

 

[basilio]

Take the Climate Warmists to court!!

Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
[/B

]
Somewhere we hear the cries of climate change denialists that CC science is crooked, contrived , wrong, ect, ect. So why not settle this argument in a Court of Law ?

Well it has just been done.

The now bankrupt Peabody Energy went to court in Minnesota to argue the case against a social price on carbon. Essentially just how much damage does CO2 cause and what should the result cost be against a ton of carbon.

In the Peabody corner we had Dr Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and William Happer. These are the big scientific names behind CC denial. Their job was to convince the court that CC wasn't what it was cracked up to be and just a little glitch in the landscape.

They comprehensively lost their argument. How was the case won ?

How was this case won? Well certainly it helps to have science on your side. Without that, even the most expensive expert witnesses struggle. But Peabody’s scientists made errors that were easy to identify and point out to the Judge. Furthermore, the Judge was smart, quickly able to see through nonsense non-science.

For those of you that read the report, you’ll notice that the Peabody side made claims about the natural variability of Earth’s climate, about Earth temperature changes, and about extreme weather events. The environmental group’s side rebutted these viewpoints (see pages 15-19).

We also showed that the experts for Peabody relied extensively on non-peer-reviewed reports, blog sites, and think tanks to support their conclusions (paragraph 359 in the report). The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the best source for accurate climate science information. In other areas, the Peabody experts used scientific papers that we showed were incorrect (paragraph 360 in the report, for example).

Perhaps the key findings are best articulated in the judicial conclusions, which begin on page 114. Among the conclusions are:

22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5 °C is correct.

23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5 °C range.

47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case


I wait to see how Andrew Bolt reports this case.