30 posts in this topic

Lewis defended Fox News' false balance climate reporting by denying that there is an expert consensus on human-caused global warming. He did so by attacking the study that I co-authored earlier this year, finding 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate abstracts and papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agree that humans are responsible.

 
ejyt.jpg
 
Soon after our paper was published, it was the subject of many attacks by climate contrarians who know that expert consensus is a powerful public communications tool. These attacks exemplified the five characteristics common to scientific denialism highlighted in a paper by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee:
 
1) Conspiracy theories;
2) Fake experts;
3) Cherry picking;
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and
5) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
 
Five months later, Lewis' Fox News opinion piece made the exact same arguments, exemplifying all five characteristics of scientific denialism. Mainly, he focused on the papers captured in our peer-reviewed literature search using the keywords "global warming" and "global climate change" that didn't say anything about the causes of global warming.
 
In the USA, because conservatives have denied the problem exists instead of engaging in constructing solutions, we've been forced to implement government greenhouse gas regulations. This is a less than ideal solution from an economic perspective, and strongly opposed by conservatives. We need conservatives to stop denying the problem and begin crafting better climate policies that utilize the free market to solve the problem with the maximum economic benefit.
 
If Fox News and the rest of the conservative media continue their practice of false balance, scientific denialism, and obstructionism, we'll just end up with climate policies that conservatives really don't like. Marlo Lewis and Fox News need to stop denying the problem and start helping to construct the best climate solutions.

Source: The Guardian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that the peer review system, in virtually all disciplines, has been under fire for ages means nothing, right?

After all, peer review was why it took from 1915's The Origin of Continents and Oceans to almost the 1960's for Plate Tectonics to take hold - the status quo defends its dogma. The same happens in everything from geology to medicine and astrophysics.

Climate journals and the IPCC dogma are no different, though this year IPCC came under increasing attack for doom & gloom predictions that don't pan out and had to modify its report.

Not enough though. The Emperor's wardrobe is still drafty.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific process is infinitely more credible than Fox News.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific process is infinitely more credible than Fox News.

 

You are arguing with a Republican, he doesn't believe in climate change, give it up :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are arguing with a Republican, he doesn't believe in climate change, give it up :)

I don't have a problem with people being sceptical of climate change but I do take issue with those who refuse overwhelming scientific evidence when it contradicts their personal beliefs. The scientific process certainly isn't perfect and our understanding of the climate is evolving all the time but it's another thing entirely for Fox News to misrepresent scientific research to promote a conservative agenda.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News stares reality right in the face, and then turns and sprints in the opposite direction as fast as they can sweeping up as many dumb viewers as they can.

 

I considered myself a republican before this Fox News brand of wacko birds came along.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News should patent that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR: I don't doubt the climate is changing, it's been bouncing vetween warm and cool since the last ice age, it's the balance of WHY I disagree with. Every few months another forcing external to human activity is found, yet IPCC doesn't change their mantra until put in the corner like an unruly child.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are arguing with a Republican, he doesn't believe in climate change, give it up :)

 

And one who believes in cloud pixies at that.  It's best to just ignore his silly posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with people being sceptical of climate change but I do take issue with those who refuse overwhelming scientific evidence when it contradicts their personal beliefs. The scientific process certainly isn't perfect and our understanding of the climate is evolving all the time but it's another thing entirely for Fox News to misrepresent scientific research to promote a conservative agenda.

 

This whole time I have been throwing batteries, electronics, fluorescent bulbs, aluminum cans, paper, glass, and other trash in the trash! I also fake my smog test every year on my cars! Does that make me an eco-terrorist? Ah, hahaha! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR: I don't doubt the climate is changing, it's been bouncing vetween warm and cool since the last ice age, it's the balance of WHY I disagree with. Every few months another forcing external to human activity is found, yet IPCC doesn't change their mantra until put in the corner like an unruly child.

 

That is kinda how I feel too.  Yes, the climate is changing but I think the doomsayers saying it is all due to mankind are grossly mistaken in this misguided notion that climate should be static were it not for man.  The climate would be changing regardless of our presence.  But the degree to how much would hopefully have been less.

 

All I know about climate and pollution is this: no matter what we do, unless China gets onboard too, it is futile to bother trying to reduce our carbon footprint or any of that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they do. This shouldn't be shocking to anyone. Fox News gets money from the Koch's. The Koch's make less money if people actually start wanting to help the planet with live on.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know about climate and pollution is this: no matter what we do, unless China gets onboard too, it is futile to bother trying to reduce our carbon footprint or any of that.

If you have a problem, you do everything you can to address the problem. Just because others do not want to address it, does not mean you should just give up on it, that would just continue to prolong the problem.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like how people say climate change doesn't exist flat out..... fact is it DOES exist we have evidence that it happens every so many x thousands of years in cycles, we know it exists, the issue is, is it man made now or a part of a natural process...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a problem, you do everything you can to address the problem. Just because others do not want to address it, does not mean you should just give up on it, that would just continue to prolong the problem.

 

Is that why almost all of our products are manufactured in the country with the least restrictions? What are you really going to do about it? Not buy a computer?

 

Oh, we can just raise our prices here to pay for the goofy wind farms and make people buy fancy LED light bulbs. That will make it all better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that the peer review system, in virtually all disciplines, has been under fire for ages means nothing, right?

After all, peer review was why it took from 1915's The Origin of Continents and Oceans to almost the 1960's for Plate Tectonics to take hold - the status quo defends its dogma. The same happens in everything from geology to medicine and astrophysics.

Climate journals and the IPCC dogma are no different, though this year IPCC came under increasing attack for doom & gloom predictions that don't pan out and had to modify its report.

Not enough though. The Emperor's wardrobe is still drafty.

 

huh?

 

Do you work for fox news?  you make all sorts of claims with absolutely no data to back it up with.

 

Peer review isn't about confirming absolutes, never has been, never will be.  The scientific method is a process, not a means to an end, ergo we never have an official answer, just a best consensus and to be honest, that is the best one could ever expect.  I'm not sure what you're trying to claim.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that why almost all of our products are manufactured in the country with the least restrictions? What are you really going to do about it? Not buy a computer?

 

Oh, we can just raise our prices here to pay for the goofy wind farms and make people buy fancy LED light bulbs. That will make it all better.

 

Who wants to live in China? All over the news lately the pollution reports are so strong that its the #1 killer in that country and its so bad people can't see their hands in front of their faces. Is that really what you want?

 

Wind energy is very abundant and LED pay for themselves in no time now.

 

Not all of us are excitedly running out to walmart to buy cheap inefficient bullcrap made in foreign countries.. but even with all that said, walmart has had good prices on led bulbs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did he explain what caused the first ice age?  or did he think the human population back then caused that too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR: I don't doubt the climate is changing, it's been bouncing vetween warm and cool since the last ice age, it's the balance of WHY I disagree with. Every few months another forcing external to human activity is found, yet IPCC doesn't change their mantra until put in the corner like an unruly child.

 

What does this even mean? How is the IPCC being an unruly child?  When i think of unruly child i think of someone who isn't listening, someone who ignores facts, evidence and someone who doesn't have the critical thinking skills to reason through things.  Do you have any evidence to suggest the IPCC is any of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did he explain what caused the first ice age?  or did he think the human population back then caused that too?

 

We already know the ice age cycles... We're able to use ice sample cores and rock analysis to derive the data showing how current events differ from historical events. If you read about climate change you would know we have historical data showing 750,000 years of cycles of 180ppm to 220ppm CO2 but as of 2012 we're climbing past 400ppm so while people believed we had another cyclic ice age coming over the next 1000 years no data supports the possibility of such at the levels of CO2 recorded.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did he explain what caused the first ice age?  or did he think the human population back then caused that too?

 

It's about the rate of change, not the fact that change occurs naturally.  Notice the decrease in time between events and the intensity.  There's almost a huge bush fire in Australia every year now and it certainly wasn't like that a couple of decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm uninterested in why climate change is occurring. We should focus on determining whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous for long-term human survival, and write our policies around that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this even mean? How is the IPCC being an unruly child? When i think of unruly child i think of someone who isn't listening, someone who ignores facts, evidence and someone who doesn't have the critical thinking skills to reason through things. Do you have any evidence to suggest the IPCC is any of that?

Just this year, before they issued their report, numerous govts had to intercede with IPCC over their failed gloom & doom predictions and focus on human caused warming. The unruly child metaphor is because they resist change, regardless of pressing need.

Quote from the Dutch report -

The IPCC needs to adjust its principles. We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change. The Netherlands is also of the opinion that the word ?comprehensive? may have to be deleted, because producing comprehensive assessments becomes virtually impossible with the ever expanding body of knowledge and IPCC may be more relevant by producing more special reports on topics that are new and controversial. The IPCC needs more transparent, focused and up-to-date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, peer review was why it took from 1915's The Origin of Continents and Oceans to almost the 1960's for Plate Tectonics to take hold - the status quo defends its dogma. The same happens in everything from geology to medicine and astrophysics.

That would be completely normal: when Wegener published his work, he could advance only a hypothesis, he could not provide a valid mechanism that demonstrated his theory: how continents were merged at one time and how they broke into smaller pieces. Seafloor motion and ocean mid-ridge were only discovered after World War II and other seismology scientific tools were invented in the 1960s.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just this year, before they issued their report, numerous govts had to intercede with IPCC over their failed gloom & doom predictions and focus on human caused warming. Quote from the Dutch report -

 

 

The IPCC is a governing body formed strictly to determine the influence of man on climate change. IF the dutch want to expand their influence to cover more natural influences, that is great..  Netherlands is full of volcanoes last i checked so i'm sure they want whatever is achieved to better include natural factos as well, but ironically the Dutch are miles ahead of most other nations in the green economy so once again, i'm not sure what your point is..    how does the dutch wanting to guarantee better independent research detract from core values that originally established the IPCC?  the ductch weren't denying any doom and gloom they just wanted more independent analysis to include natural causes above and beyond the original charter.. which any UN nation can request..

 

The IPCC contains no scientists or researchers, its a governing council.

 

BTW, here are the first two statements of the IPCC charter.

 

INTRODUCTION

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

 

 

The full analysis here is rather objective and actually shows no claims against the IPCC other than expanding its purpose.

 

http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf

 

The dutch in no shape form or fashion dispute any of the data or science of climate change, they just want to make sure comprehensive is comprehensive or change the wording as requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.