> Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have expressed concern about Sammon using his position to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right.
People at Fox News were instructed to lie? I'm shocked I tell ya! This leaked e-mail only shows what most thinking people have known for many years...that you can't depend upon Fox News to actually be a source of journalism. Unfortunately, apparently far too many of the ignorati do indeed thrive on Faux News.
Fox News Channel - Where journalism goes to die. It really is the "skid row" of news reporting. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost......
And of course, on a slightly different tack, we have numerous peoplz on da internez screaming about how there are freezing conditions and snow in Europe and the USA, therefore obviously global warming is dead. I mean, whoever would've thought you'd see snow there in December?
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
>*Fox's Washington bureau have expressed concern about Sammon using his position to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right.*
Slant? More like firewall. They are ordered to challenge anything evidence of warming, while promoting bogus claims such as:
>*That night, on the same Special Report broadcast, correspondent James Rosen advanced the wildly misleading claim that climate scientists "destroyed more than 150 years worth of raw climate data."*
Unfortunately Jakers, I've discovered that no matter how many times you patiently and concisely explain to a sceptic that the data is all in the archives of the world's various met services from where it originated, the shutters come down and the cone of silence descends.
"But they destroyed it!"
"No, they only ever had a copy of it. It still exists in the spot it originally came from."
"But they destroyed it!"
"OK, this conversation is clearly going nowhere and is waaaay beyond your comprehension level - that of a 4 year old."
Die-hard sceptics simply ignore facts they don't want to hear. As I'm sure you'd know, it's a bizarre and surreal phenomenon when you experience it before your own eyes.
Cancun Mexico has set six record cold days for Dec. (coldest in 100 years) The UK has set the record for coldest Dec. day in 350 years. Hard to get behind warming when your butt is frozen to a lampost.
>*..we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.*
So we have unequivocal evidence of warming from multiple lines of evidence vs. ? (So when will Watts publish his paper?, and how many years has be been promising it?)
Now-now, all you critics of the Australian. After all, in a moment of aberration they did publish an article by Dr Julian Hunt. He begins with the admonition âThe greenhouse horse has bolted so its now time for climate change adaptationâ. I think he is wrong. We must still strive to reduce GHG emissions but make up your own mind. The article is at:
Here's an excerpt that will peg even the most industrial-strength "Beverage-Through-The-Nose-O-Meter":
Velikovskyâs major ideas built on the claim that Earth has experienced natural global disasters throughout its history. The major cause of natural catastrophes was brushes with other objects in the solar system and beyond. Itâs probably thanks to Velikovsky that Walter and Luis Alvarez were able to propose the claim that a collision with an asteroid 65 million years ago led to the extinction of dinosaurs. The father/son connection serendipitously allowed cross-discipline discussion between physics and geology. The intellectual isolation of specialization has undermined the ability to understand.
Science Is The Ability To Predict
In the end Velikovsky succeeded because he passed the ultimate test of science; the ability to predict. More important, they were in contradiction to prevailing views. He made many and apparently none are incorrect to date. The interesting one was the temperature of Venus, which was almost double what the textbooks said. The same textbooks that incorrectly use Venus as an example of runaway CO2 induced Greenhouse Effect.
Failure of the University President to approve a conference on Velikovsky was symptomatic of the dogmatic, closed minds that pervade modern science. The few scientists involved with the AGW debacle deliberately exploited and practiced that condition. Their actions indicate they saw this as a battle, but it was against the truth and as Aeschylus said, âIn war, truth is the first casualty.â
I knew it, I knew it! Everyone else should just go home. This is absolutely marvelous, we've gone back to the '70s and I'll be dancing the night away. Yipppeeeeee.
caerbannog:
>Tim Ball has just opened himself to another round of laugh-out-loud mockery, and this time he's taken it to the next level....(canadafreepress.com).
From what I understand 'canadafreepress' is based in the US and is run by an expat Canadian from her home.
Dan:
>I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
This latest revelation comes after Media Matters uncovered an email sent by Sammon to Fox journalists at the peak of the health care reform debate, ordering them to avoid using the term "public option" and instead use variations of "government option."
And then there's this from the wiki page on Reuters:
Reuters has a strict policy towards upholding journalistic objectivity. This policy has caused comment on the possible insensitivity of its non-use of the word terrorist in reports, including the September 11 attacks. Reuters has been careful to only use the word terrorist in quotes, whether quotations or scare quotes. Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist."
So it's OK that for Reuters, "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," but for Fox News it's not OK that one man's "Public Option" is another man's "Government Option?"
You know, lefty news organizations slant the news all the time. So one outfit slants to the right and you guys get your nipples in a twist? Grow up.
an article by Dr Julian Hunt. He begins with the admonition âThe greenhouse horse has bolted so its now time for climate change adaptationâ. I think he is wrong. We must still strive to reduce GHG emissions but make up your own mind.
Well that's what he said:
"international action must now focus with equal urgency on how societies can adapt to (as well as prevent) these changes."
Also:
"In the absence of moves towards a much stronger, global and legally binding deal, the world is thus on the path of the "business as usual" scenario envisaged recently as an unlikely worst case."
Sounds great. I like this comment by one of their nutcases:
When CO2 levels reach 1000ppm call us back and start predicting apocalypse then.
They won't be needing any calls when it reaches 1000ppm.
I like this message The Australian gives you when you submit a comment:
Feedback will be rejected if it does not add to a debate, or is a purely personal attack, or is offensive, repetitious, illegal or meaningless, or contains clear errors of fact.
"or contains clear errors of fact". As if that matters to them.
> So it's OK that for Reuters, "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,"
The UK when it was under attack from the terrorist organisation the IRA (who were paid for by the complaisant USA public with little problem), did not call these attacks terrorism. They were illegal and calling them terror attacks played to the IRA's demand. To the USA, the IRA were freedom fighters for the "Auld Country".
Claiming terrorist attacks would scare people.
They also could have been plain old criminal attacks, so until someone takes blame for it, it remains only *presumed* terrorist.
Hence the quotes.
But Fox have no desire other than to scare people (which is a terrorist aim) with their replacement.
So Reuters tries NOT to scare people but Fox is alarmist and tries to frighten people.
And you, ben, complain often and bitterly about "alarmist" AGW.
I guess as long as it's alarmism for what you want to scare people for, it's A-OK...
The UK when it was under attack from the terrorist organisation the IRA (who were paid for by the complaisant USA public with little problem), did not call these attacks terrorism. They were illegal and calling them terror attacks played to the IRA's demand. To the USA, the IRA were freedom fighters for the "Auld Country".
Say Wha??? If you're going to make a claims like these, you'd better back them up.
So Reuters tries NOT to scare people but Fox is alarmist and tries to frighten people.
Are you scared by claims of terrorist attacks? If so, why are you such a wuss? If not, why do you assume other people do not rise to your elite level of awesome?
>*You know, lefty news organizations slant the news all the time. So one outfit slants to the right and you guys get your nipples in a twist? Grow up.*
Really ben? Give us your examples so we can compare the likes and differences?
Like I said, multiple lines of evidence showing unequivocal warming vs. ?
I also note that ben completely avoided the example of fox's climate dictates. Perhaps that was a little too hard for ben to compare to other news slanting.
Even his public option comparison is not like with like. Fox dictated and campaigned based on GOP strategy. Show me the like from the left. You'd need to go to the USSR dictatorships.
it's not OK that one man's "Public Option" is another man's "Government Option?"
Don't start talking about healthcare Ben.
My wife is an Australian surgeon who just got back from a year working in the USA (a large part of which I also spent over there).
We were there right in the middle of the healthcare debate, and while channel flipping through Fox, I witnessed some of the most gratuitous bullshit I have ever heard uttered on television of any description in any country I've ever visited (which is quite a few, as I travel for a living).
Just don't start me up on public healthcare and Fox.
>"So it's OK that for Reuters, "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," but for Fox News it's not OK that one man's "Public Option" is another man's "Government Option?" You know, lefty news organizations slant the news all the time. So one outfit slants to the right and you guys get your nipples in a twist? Grow up."
Except that to call a person or organisation a terrorist is to accuse them of a crime, which allegation most often has NOT been proven in court, and would leave the publishing organisation open to a serious lawsuit.
The difference between 'public' and 'Government' in this context is slanted with the specific aim of antagonising readers to one of them and scoring a political goal.
Seeing how the 'lefty' position on health care is almost universally for single payer, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that semantic posturing over 'public option' vs. 'government option' is nothing more than reactionary affective propaganda?
Ben #25 may be excused such knowledge about the IRA being partially funded* by Americans who donated to their cause if he is under, say, 30 years of age or not from the UK or Ireland.
See for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm
Obviously most of the funding was given and spent in the 70's and 80's when the terrorists were most active, and undoubtedly has fallen dramatically in the last decade.
*Other sources of funding included extortion and criminal activities of various sorts.
"..published observations by Riccardo Riva from Delft in The Netherlands and international colleagues who use satellite technology to measure actual global sea level rise in this same decade to be in the order of 1mm a year,..."
Riva's paper:
"...we model the distinct regional signatures or fingerprints of relative sea-level (RSL) change, obtaining maxima at low latitudes between ±40° N/S, but with particularly strong regional patterns. We estimate that the total ice and water mass loss from the continents is causing global mean sea-level to rise by 1.0 ± 0.4 mm/yr."
So The Australian has published two anti-facts:
- Riva isn't using direct satellite measurements
- Riva has not said total average sea level rise is 1mm/year, he said ice/water mass loss from land causes this much of the observed sea level change, which is 3.2mm/year, according to CSIRO:
Does Monash University enforce any academic standards on its employees?
"Political interference against scientific objectivity is insidious and may ultimately deliver hideous outcomes. It is common in climate change debate for lesser intellects to label those who dare to question present climate science orthodoxy as deniers, making the implicit association between climate sceptics and Holocaust deniers.
Such accusers probably are unaware of the savage irony in this epithet, in that German academics and scientists compliant with government policy were intimately involved in the formulation and development of Nazi racial policy, and, as historians have commented, the Nazi regime brought boom-time conditions for scientists from racial anthropologists, biologists and economists who were able to contribute to this aspect of the regime's policies. Those academics who were outspoken were removed by the Gestapo.
I do not offer these thoughts as being analogous to present climate debate but by way of caution to politicians who may be unwilling to allow debate, and scientists who may be unduly influenced by funding sources."
The author, Michael Asten, is apparently a professorial fellow of geosciences at Monash. Very sad to see an academic so blatantly traducing the work and reputation of his scientific colleagues. He hits some of the other bingo-card spots as well (water vapour feedback, cosmic rays). Apparently he [has form](http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/greenblog/index.php/theaustralia…) when it comes to misrepresenting the work of others.
He also provides unwitting irony:
"...provide a timely example on the need for scientific objectivity".
Yes Michael, thanks for the example: you've blatantly misrepresented a scientist's work (Riva's) to support your politics. You've misrepresented Dr Clive Spash as a scientist (he's an economist) and misrepresented the nature of his dispute with CSIRO (the publication of an economic paper addressing matters of government policy).
Your misinterpretation of Riva's work would indicate you are in denial as to the facts of sea level rise. This has nothing to do with the Nazis (I mean, WTF?) and everything to do with a failure on your part to apply objectivity and rational analysis to the matter at hand.
Besides getting his science wrong Asten has got the wrong end of the stick and is almost [five years too late](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1568867.htm) to the party on looking at governmnet gags on climate science:
>*While industry players claim to have the inside running on greenhouse policy, the scientific experts say they're being silenced. Calls for reducing greenhouse emissions are landing some of the world's leading scientists in trouble. Last month in the US, NASA's chief climate change scientist claimed the Bush administration was trying to stop him from speaking out after he called for cuts. And as Four Corners will reveal tonight, leading Australian scientists claim they're being gagged too.*
Plimer and Carter, now somewhat discredited, have been eclipsed by Asten as the pin up boy of geological scepticism as evidenced by todayâs comments. I have noted that Asten has had a free run to date as evidenced by the two articles in December 2009 on the research by Pearson et al.
While the articles received wide coverage in the denialist blogs there was almost no rebuttal elsewhere that I could see, aside from Person and colleagues in a letter-to-the-editor column.
Is there someone out there with nous and knowledge who can effectively challenge Astenâs arguments in the public sphere? Just a whiff of scientific credibility allows the sceptics to plump out their veneer thin arguments.
I emailed Asten pointing out that he misrepresented Riva et al. He replied that he is speaking with paper now to issue a correction. Let's see what transpires.
Thanks to James Haughton, I had missed the rebuttal in your link. Overall Asten's articles published in the Australian have received little attention aside from the denialists. I really hope that someone can take him on although I wouldn't count on it being published in The Australian with its 'balanced' coverage of climate science.
1) Dinner Tuesday at AGU was with Naomi Oreseskes and her coauthor Erik Conway. Naomi had a good time in Oz. She had fun pointing out that she was after all originally a geologist, hence was not overly impressed by certain Oz folks.
2) And just for fun, since open thread, people may find interesting this chronology of George Mason University's handling of plagiarism complain against Wegman amusing.
Among other things, one can find a good example of why posting on Facebook might not be a good idea.
Wow, don't you realise that calling them "blithering idiots" is just the same as calling them holocaust deniers, because many holocaust deniers are also blithering idiots (apart from the ones who get published in Quadrant)? Have you no shame?
The UK when it was under attack from the terrorist organisation the IRA (who were paid for by the complaisant USA public with little problem), did not call these attacks terrorism. They were illegal and calling them terror attacks played to the IRA's demand.
The IRA has been consistently classified by the British government as a terrorist organisation since 1975. Individual attacks made by the IRA against Britain have been described as terrorism ever since the 1971, at least.
Wow, you're talking utter bollocks, and I should know as I grew up while The Troubles were happening. Look up the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.
1974 CHAPTER 56
An Act to proscribe organisations concerned in terrorism, and to give power to exclude certain persons from Great Britain or the United Kingdom in order to prevent acts of terrorism, and for connected purposes.
[29th November 1974]
At Wiki:
The initial groups outlawed were the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) in the United Kingdom and numerous loyalist groups within Northern Ireland.
> Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist."
ben has a point. Similarly, one universe's laws of physics are another universe's religious bullshit! I can see how that principle applies if ben is, in fact, living in another universe.
>*I also note that ben completely avoided the example of fox's climate dictates. Perhaps that was a little too hard for ben to compare to other news slanting.
Even his public option comparison is not like with like. Fox dictated and campaigned based on GOP strategy. Show me the like from the left. You'd need to go to the USSR dictatorships.*
Except that to call a person or organisation a terrorist is to accuse them of a crime, which allegation most often has NOT been proven in court, and would leave the publishing organisation open to a serious lawsuit.
So, you think the appropriate thing for a news organization to do is say something like 'a suicide bomber, allegedly a terrorist, exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children'?
So, you think the appropriate thing for a news organization to do is say something like 'a suicide bomber, allegedly a terrorist, exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children'?
The distinction is when a particular person or group is identified in the report. If no-one is identified, you can leave out the word "allegedly'.
So, you think the appropriate thing for a news organization to do is say something like 'a suicide bomber, allegedly a terrorist, exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children'?
The distinction is when a particular person or group is identified in the report. If no-one is identified, you can leave out the word "allegedly'.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | December 17, 2010 6:18 PM
In the case of the IRA that was never a problem since they often claimed responsibility for their actions. In any case in the market example that is clearly a terrorist act so the word 'allegedly" is inappropriate.
Unfortunately there seems to be an ample supply of geologists like Asten willing to exploit their relatively lesser scientific credibility in the service of climate science denialism.
So, you think the appropriate thing for a news organization to do is say something like 'a suicide bomber, allegedly a terrorist, exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children'?
Well I'm not a journalist, but I think the most accurate thing to say is, "a suicide bomber exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children". I don't really get why you would need to include the word "terrorist" in there, since - like the Reuters fellow allegedly said - one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, but the "suicide bombing" works either way.
It's in the nature of the media to be sensational, that's how they draw an audience. Nobody, as was once observed, pays money to watch a documentary on Ugandan women weaving raffia-mats.
So even outlets like *Der Spiegel* writes stuff like: "If the current worsening of the climate continues, all of humanity will suffer â a billion people will starve."
A billion? Come on.....
"Some climate scientists even foresee the coming of a worldwide natural catastrophe...the chances of a return to the optimum climate are at best 1 in 10,000.â³
Still, that was in 1974, when scientists were convinced a new ice age was on its way.
I note you have no problem with Fox News acting in a neo-Pravda manner, running on GOP strategy.
And regarding Fox's climate dictators, perhaps you can help me out to understand Fox's position. Fox dictates that warming should be called into question, but the evidence of warming in challenged by what?
>*multiple lines of evidence showing unequivocal warming vs. ?*
You don't see a problem with this dictate Rick? Can you provide the compelling evidence that demands some vague, unsupported "skeptic" allusion contradicting every finding of warming?
Why be so vague, if not that they have no sound evidence contradicting the science?
I note that Michael Asten's correction appeared in today's letter column in The Australian and can be be best described as deliberately obscure. The text, in its entirety, is below.
"It has been pointed out to me that I erred in The Australian today, in that in quoting the work of Riccardo Riva I failed to consider the added sea level rise associated with expansion of the oceans as they warm. The discrepancy is smaller than I give (ie, a factor of two to 2.5 rather than 5)."
pough -- "I don't really get why you would need to include the word "terrorist" in there, since - like the Reuters fellow allegedly said - one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, but the "suicide bombing" works either way."
It's the suicide bomber pulling the pin in a marketplace full of women and children that identifies the perpetrator of the act as a terrorist. The point was to instill terror in order to make political gain. He/she could not be said to have been in combat IMHO.
A freedom fighter has a tendency to shoot at military tagets.
>"So, you think the appropriate thing for a news organization to do is say something like 'a suicide bomber, allegedly a terrorist, exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children'?"
Well, last count, there were a LOT more ways of carrying out terrorism. And until the Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombings and Islamic Fundamentalists popularised them, they were surprisingly rare, and despite all the media attention, a LOT more terrorism is carried out by different means.
It seems to me you are deliberately confounding the issue. If you have a person under suspicion of, or charged with, carrying out a terrorist attack, that person is an 'alleged' terrorist, until charges are proven in court. If you have an organisation accused of organising or funding terrorist attacks, those again are just allegations until proven in court.
Even when 'crimes' are proven in court, views can differ. IRA were terrorists to the English and largely freedom fighters to the Irish and the Americans who funded them. Chechnians are terrorists to Russia and freedom fighters to most of the rest of the world. Several Uighur organisations are terrorists to China and freedom fighters to the rest of the world. E.T.A. is recognised as a terrorist organisation by every western country, but to Basque independentists they are freedom fighters. You have the same issue with the PKK, the KLA, and so on...
What do you think of suicide bombers who blow themselves up at American checkpoints in Iraq, or Afghanistan? They are targeting military personnel... Are they terrorists? Pause a moment to look through the media frenzy and take note of how often attacks on military personnel are labelled as 'terrorist' for the sake of propaganda. Is a military unit from an occupying force not a valid target for an insurgency?
What about Wikileaks and Julian Assange, accused of being terrorists by several commentators in the recent past. They have never killed anyone or bombed anything.
What do you think of suicide bombers who blow themselves up at American checkpoints in Iraq, or Afghanistan? They are targeting military personnel... Are they terrorists?
Yes, of course, though they were freedom fighters when they were doing it to soldiers of the soviet union ...
(that is sarcasm, in case it's not obvious enough)
> Yes, of course, though they were freedom fighters when they were doing it to soldiers of the soviet union ...
Indeed. In jingoistic fare like 1988's Rambo III, the plucky Mujahideen were quite literally the cavalry, riding to the rescue at the last minute in the fight against the Soviet threat.
"A confidential US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks claimed that Castro's government banned the Oscar-nominated film because it painted such a 'mythically' favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a 'popular backlash'.
But Moore said that far from being supressed by Havana, the film â which attempted to discredit the US healthcare system by highlighting what it claimed was the excellence of the Cuban system â was shown on national television."
Someone's going to end up with an egg on his face.
What do you think of suicide bombers who blow themselves up at American checkpoints in Iraq, or Afghanistan? They are targeting military personnel... Are they terrorists?
Uh, yes. Seriously, are you really having difficulty with this? Even if you use the wikipedia definition, according to Hoffman it seems pretty obvious. Really? Freedom fighters can be terrorists. Terrorists can be terrorists. In fact, most people who are terrorist, are, in fact, terrorists. Not calling them terrorists doesn't fool anyone. Well, it fools a few people. But why go out of your way to worry about them?
It's surely obvious by the 21st Century that the term 'terrorism' is a political word designed to neutralize debate about the legitamacy of resistance which has escalated to being armed and violent in whatever its context.
When Churchill gave his famous "...we will fight them on the beaches" speech, we can be damn sure had events transpired differently that the German occupation would have condemned the 'terrorists' while the indigenous Brits would have supported their resistance forces. I'm sure both older and more recent Irish nationalists would appreciate the truth of that statement.
The members of RAF Bomber Command were also called 'terrorists' in the night area bombing campaign against German cities from 1942-1945, waged in pursuit of the larger Battle of Germany.
Reducing understanding of the world to the level of Fox News approved terminology is part of the linguistics of control that Chomsky warned about over 20 years ago.
Use of the term 'terrorism' only conveys that the user has their own agenda, although that agenda will most often though not always be that of an unwitting parrot.
However, my current favourite for any putative award that might be formulated is Donald Rapp, who [believes Tim Curtin to be a "distinguished climatologist"](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/on-wegman-who-will-guard-the-guar…), and from whom Rapp has apparently "profitted" in his Renaissance Man self-elevation to climatological doyen.
I would be most interested in other people's suggestions for candidates, and for an award title. Perhaps our host might even start a thread specifically for the subject?
The latest denialist meme (as found at WTF, Goddard's amusingly titled Real Science and in an article by Christopher Booker Award winning journalist Christopher Booker) is that GISS is zigging while all the others zag, and this is on purpose because Hansen wants to be able to say that 2010 is the hottest year on record. The fact that Tony and Steve regularly check Hansen's stool apparently doesn't stop Hansen from thinking he can get away with it.
It's the classic denialist two-step:
1)Ask no questions of those who can answer
2)Insinuate fraud... because you were right about that last time, weren't you?
> Not calling them terrorists doesn't fool anyone.
Calling them terrorists gives them the propaganda they need. Calling them bombers or murderers makes them merely criminals with no other needs than destruction.
But both sides want terror in the populace. A scared populace is more open to control which government lunatics are looking to gain as much as the fringe lunatics in the unofficial governments like Al Quaida.
Lomborg Replies to Dot Earth Readers (link), but I'm confused - Andy Revkin said he sent Lomborg six Qs, and I see 4 video replies, to *comments* (many of which were not questions).
Having asked a *question* that I wanted Lomborg to answer (namely, "who bankrolled&otherwise supported the film"), I'm bemused and somewhat irked.
No Worries Wow #41. I'm always willing to 'compromise' too. I don't like the word 'denialist' either. Not for the reasons you suppose. I'd prefer a term that acknowledges our rightful and dignified presence. There is no such thing as a 'denialist' Wow, even with a capital "D". Look up any mainstream English dictionary just to prove my point.
However, you will find 'alarmist' in there, and probably for good reasons. :-)
I think you need to 'alarm' your friend 'global warming' Wow, I think he has gone on a long long long holiday ! :-)
#78: Well Hell, Y'all! Billy Bob demands acknowlegment of his rightful and dignified presence, then uses his mainstream English dictionary (? conservapaedia...sorry diphthongs are so unamerican) to find "strawman". Hee Haw. Bless his heart. He's got to be a Poe.
OT, perhaps, but this _is_ an 'open thread'... :-)
Somebody sneak something into the Nasa site?
I'm flummoxed by a link to the [Nasa website](http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primar…) that is currently making the rounds of the ... um ... anti-AGW blogs. As in, wtf? Purports to be a NASA page, from their 'big questions' section, the links to and from seem genuine, but the writing -- my goodness! Verbs and subjects don't agree, some sentences just don't scan, and in one paragraph the word 'cooling' (or 'cool') appears in every sentence after the first. As in, "Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to ... cause our world to cool."
Needless to say, both the tone and the conclusions (not to mention the writing skill) differ sharply from the other pages in the section.
Sure sounds like someone is trying to set up a 'even NASA says the ice age is coming' meme. What gives?
For Eric Anderson, a suggestion re that NASA page:
"Best bet is to use the 'send us your comments' link at the bottom to point out that the page on forcings is being deliberately misinterpreted (link), and that perhaps a little more detail on the timescales involved and the relative size of the different forcings would help to correct this. "
Thanks Jakerman #80 I stand corrected. It sure does look like a 'modern entry' - judging by the 'context' :-). You didn't recommend it was added yourself did you ?
Very Well. I exist now. Now, can someone please explain this to ole timbo here too for me ?
Like Bob Carter 'not on' the ABC, I seem to be banned from this site as well. Surely 2 such insignificant men cannot be so dangerous ?
many flawed global warming papers that have appeared in recent years such as those describing the hockey stick graph
the flawed predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over such issues as the rate of disappearance of the glaciers in the Himalayas
In his otherwise excellent 2010 book The Hockey Stick Illusion .., AW Montford..
Kealey might have something worthwhile to say, but his piece is founded on his own version of the facts so tends to produce a collapse in interest even if the rest is OK.
Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren't incompatible
MIT professor Kerry Emanuel is among a rare breed of conservative scientists who are sounding the alarm for climate change and criticizing Republicans' 'agenda of denial' and 'anti-science stance.'
{...}
Emanuel dislikes applying the word "skeptic" to those who deny climate change. He says all scientists are skeptical; that's the nature of the field. His own innate skepticism meant that it took him longer than his colleagues to be persuaded of climate change, Emanuel said.
He remembers thinking it ridiculous when a noted climatologist told Congress in 1988 that he was all but certain that the climate was changing. Yet, as analyses of climate data advanced through the 1990s and Emanuel found a relationship between hurricanes and climate change in his own work, he came to see a link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
{...}
Emanuel waded into the fray early last year. He wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal criticizing a friend and colleague for dismissing the evidence of climate change and clinging "to the agenda of denial." Then Emanuel added his name to the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a website run by scientists to provide accurate information from top researchers in climate-related fields.
I've always rebelled against the thinking that ideology can trump fact, said Emanuel, 55. The people who call themselves conservative these days aren't conservative by my definition. I think they're quite radical.
{...}
I am a rare example of a Republican scientist, but I am seriously thinking about changing affiliation owing to the Republicans' increasingly anti-science stance, he wrote in an e-mail. The best way to elevate the number of Republican scientists is to get Republican politicians to stop beating up on science and scientists
A week or so ago someone put a name to the law/phenomenon whereby any gain in a process's energy efficiency is lost through subsequent increased use of energy.
Here's something I noted on Wottsupwiththat but I thought I'd share it here too. It's essentially an admission from WUWT that blog science isn't real science. We all knew this but it's refreshing to hear it from the horse's mouth.
It's regarding Don Easterbrook's errors in his recent guest post. Commenter BillD notes:
>Where is peer review when you need it? This post conflates the global climate record with regional records for the US and Greenland. Then it fails to point out that âpresentâ only goes up to 1905."
Etc etc etc. He notes a few more errors after this too.
Response from a mod:
>âThis is a BLOG rather than a science journal. Though some entries may contain errors at least here they are not hidden. ⦠bl57~modâ
Just read that again. This was voted best science blog 2008? They have a right to make errors so long as they're bloody obvious? Fantastic.
I've missed several of Peter Sinclair's videos, so I had quite some fun watching a few this evening. One that I particularly enjoyed was from the [confrontation between Ben Santer and Pat Michaels](http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/12/ben-santers-beatdown-of-michaels-re…)... watch Michaels start to wither at 9:40, and watch Santer's passion begin to rise at around 11:00.
It's great, and I only wish that Santer had the opportunity to really, properly, point out Michael's dodginess with numbers.
I wish too that we in Australia could have more easily watched the original transissions. I would certainly have had the popcorn in front of me!
The point is that if you are using more of a resource because it's more efficiently used, then the demand is elastic.
It's easier to give up a holiday than give up driving to work.
Therefore Jevon's Paradox doesn't make an argument to refuse efficiency gains. In the case of fossil fuels, it may merely make it a delayed reduction in use, therefore, if anything, necessary earlier than you would otherwise expect.
Over in a guardian comment thread, there are a LOT of commenters protesting the complaints of Sarah Palin using "Blood Libel" (because it is used to demonise Jews who "killed Jesus") like this:
> But this article is political correctness taken to a ludicrous degree: the idea that the use of the phrase 'blood libel' should be restricted to those talking about matters that Mr Beaumont regards as appropriate is foolish.
Funny how NOT ONE OF THEM has complained about the denialist eternal whinge about being called Nazi Holocaust Deniers.
Nor any posters who complain about denial MUST mean "Holocaust denial" telling these people like the one quoted above that, yes, it MUST be used only in connection to the Holocaust.
Joannenova has a set of so-called "warmest year antidotes". More like infections than antidotes but anyway, this is what people fall for:
Sure, and the world has been warming for 300 years, long before the industrial revolution.
Strawman. The world warmed by maybe 0.2K from 300 years ago to 100 years ago, then by 0.8K in the last 100 years.
The trend hasnât changed as our emissions rose.
Straight-out lie as the figures I mention above indicate.
It was warmer 1000 years ago,
Straight-out lie. She could at least have tried saying it might have been warmer 1000 years ago.
2000 years ago,
Same lie as for 1000 years ago.
5000 years ago
Some chance of being true but still a lie to say it WAS warmer.
and 130,000 years ago.
Strawman. The oceans were also around 7 metres higher 130,000 years ago. Also, it took 5,000 years for the approximately 6 degrees of global warming before that peak. Funny how she forgets to mention that.
In fact its been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years than it is today,
and itâs been warmer for most of the last 500 million years.
Strawman. The oceans have also been quite a few metres higher for most of the last 500 million years, not to mention other effects of having a warmer planet.
Only people who think CO2 matters keep repeating that itâs warmed from 1850 to now without pointing out the bigger perspective.
By "bigger perspective", Joannenova apparently means accepting lies and strawmen and ignoring things she prefers not to mention.
and the records have been set with thermometers like this one (next to concrete and exhaust vents
Intellectually dishonest. This is an urban thermometer so makes no contribution to the calculation of long-term global warming.
that mystery about how 75% of thermometers are ignored
Intellectually dishonest. Like a lot of other variables, a statistical sample can be used to estimate global average temperature anomaly.
most of the original raw data records are missing arenât they?
Straight-out lie. The original raw data records are held by the owners of that data.
This is just a cycling warming on a long term trend that started before CO2 became an issue
And according to joannenova's graph, the trend started more than 200 years ago. No proxy record that I know of shows this trend going back this long.
The trend hasnât changed
Not true. joannenova fails to mention that these cherry-picked short-term warming trends are getting longer and longer, first 20 years, then 30 years and now 37 years from 1974 and counting. She also fails to mention that the present warming trend (her choice cherry-picks out the Arctic) is now faster than the previous ones.
Straight-out lies, strawmen, cherry-picks, intellectual dishonesty, omissions of influential facts. Sounds like joannenova has the perfect set of infections to spread the disease of science denialism.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
Foxgate: Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004
> Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have expressed concern about Sammon using his position to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right.
Fox? Slanted to the right? Who knew?
*Yawn.*
People at Fox News were instructed to lie? I'm shocked I tell ya! This leaked e-mail only shows what most thinking people have known for many years...that you can't depend upon Fox News to actually be a source of journalism. Unfortunately, apparently far too many of the ignorati do indeed thrive on Faux News.
I like this quote from the accompanying thread:
Fox News Channel - Where journalism goes to die. It really is the "skid row" of news reporting. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost......
And of course, on a slightly different tack, we have numerous peoplz on da internez screaming about how there are freezing conditions and snow in Europe and the USA, therefore obviously global warming is dead. I mean, whoever would've thought you'd see snow there in December?
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
Here's the same issue as reported by the various media organisations:
ABC: "Maps predict future floods for cities"
SMH: "Maps predict how climate will affect coast
" & "Rising sea levels will swamp parts of Sydney"
Courier-Mail: "Maps show southeast Queensland climate change flooding "
Newcastle Herald: "Maps show impact of sea-level rises "
Geelong Advertiser: "Map shows towns face watery grave"
And The Australian? They come up with:
"Riverside to turn new waterfront by 2100".
I can't even figure out what that means, but it's clear what the intention is.
>*Fox's Washington bureau have expressed concern about Sammon using his position to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right.*
Slant? More like firewall. They are ordered to challenge anything evidence of warming, while promoting bogus claims such as:
>*That night, on the same Special Report broadcast, correspondent James Rosen advanced the wildly misleading claim that climate scientists "destroyed more than 150 years worth of raw climate data."*
Unfortunately Jakers, I've discovered that no matter how many times you patiently and concisely explain to a sceptic that the data is all in the archives of the world's various met services from where it originated, the shutters come down and the cone of silence descends.
"But they destroyed it!"
"No, they only ever had a copy of it. It still exists in the spot it originally came from."
"But they destroyed it!"
"OK, this conversation is clearly going nowhere and is waaaay beyond your comprehension level - that of a 4 year old."
Die-hard sceptics simply ignore facts they don't want to hear. As I'm sure you'd know, it's a bizarre and surreal phenomenon when you experience it before your own eyes.
Cancun Mexico has set six record cold days for Dec. (coldest in 100 years) The UK has set the record for coldest Dec. day in 350 years. Hard to get behind warming when your butt is frozen to a lampost.
>*..we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.*
So we have unequivocal evidence of warming from multiple lines of evidence vs. ? (So when will Watts publish his paper?, and how many years has be been promising it?)
Vince @ 7
Now-now, all you critics of the Australian. After all, in a moment of aberration they did publish an article by Dr Julian Hunt. He begins with the admonition âThe greenhouse horse has bolted so its now time for climate change adaptationâ. I think he is wrong. We must still strive to reduce GHG emissions but make up your own mind. The article is at:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cancun-marks-a-turning-poi…
Tim Ball has just opened himself to another round of laugh-out-loud mockery, and this time he's taken it to the next level. Linky here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31141
Here's an excerpt that will peg even the most industrial-strength "Beverage-Through-The-Nose-O-Meter":
Velikovsky was never wrong!
I knew it, I knew it! Everyone else should just go home. This is absolutely marvelous, we've gone back to the '70s and I'll be dancing the night away. Yipppeeeeee.
Curtin is making himself known over at Judith Curry's blog.
Has anyone figured out what the hell she thinks she's doing?
caerbannog:
>Tim Ball has just opened himself to another round of laugh-out-loud mockery, and this time he's taken it to the next level....(canadafreepress.com).
From what I understand 'canadafreepress' is based in the US and is run by an expat Canadian from her home.
Dan:
>I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
So why the feck did you buy the thing?
Have you heard of ethical/sustainable purchasing?
Oops, sorry Dan, Your post was so realistic I mistook it for a genuine remark.
Tim Ball:
" The intellectual isolation of specialisation has undermined the ability to understand"
As a disinformation specialist he's in a good position to confirm that.
And of course,the denidiots are usually dismissing climate science as a cobbled-together field,and demanding that they consult more specialists .
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
A number of copies of [this poster have been appearing around Newtown (NSW) recently](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5163883740_c1acb23eda_b.jpg)
This photo is Creative Commons licensed, so feel free to use it wherever appropriate to illustrate posts to do with Chairman Murdoch.
" The intellectual isolation of specialisation has undermined the ability to understand"
How does this gel with the aphorism: Jack of all trades, Master of none?
Or, as I would reckon, Tims' attempt to say that because he doesn't know lots, he understands it all?
From the link:
And then there's this from the wiki page on Reuters:
So it's OK that for Reuters, "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," but for Fox News it's not OK that one man's "Public Option" is another man's "Government Option?"
You know, lefty news organizations slant the news all the time. So one outfit slants to the right and you guys get your nipples in a twist? Grow up.
Observer:
Well that's what he said:
"international action must now focus with equal urgency on how societies can adapt to (as well as prevent) these changes."
Also:
"In the absence of moves towards a much stronger, global and legally binding deal, the world is thus on the path of the "business as usual" scenario envisaged recently as an unlikely worst case."
Sounds great. I like this comment by one of their nutcases:
They won't be needing any calls when it reaches 1000ppm.
I like this message The Australian gives you when you submit a comment:
"or contains clear errors of fact". As if that matters to them.
> So it's OK that for Reuters, "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,"
The UK when it was under attack from the terrorist organisation the IRA (who were paid for by the complaisant USA public with little problem), did not call these attacks terrorism. They were illegal and calling them terror attacks played to the IRA's demand. To the USA, the IRA were freedom fighters for the "Auld Country".
Claiming terrorist attacks would scare people.
They also could have been plain old criminal attacks, so until someone takes blame for it, it remains only *presumed* terrorist.
Hence the quotes.
But Fox have no desire other than to scare people (which is a terrorist aim) with their replacement.
So Reuters tries NOT to scare people but Fox is alarmist and tries to frighten people.
And you, ben, complain often and bitterly about "alarmist" AGW.
I guess as long as it's alarmism for what you want to scare people for, it's A-OK...
Say Wha??? If you're going to make a claims like these, you'd better back them up.
Are you scared by claims of terrorist attacks? If so, why are you such a wuss? If not, why do you assume other people do not rise to your elite level of awesome?
ben writes:
>*You know, lefty news organizations slant the news all the time. So one outfit slants to the right and you guys get your nipples in a twist? Grow up.*
Really ben? Give us your examples so we can compare the likes and differences?
Like I said, multiple lines of evidence showing unequivocal warming vs. ?
This isn't slanting this is dictating.
I also note that ben completely avoided the example of fox's climate dictates. Perhaps that was a little too hard for ben to compare to other news slanting.
Even his public option comparison is not like with like. Fox dictated and campaigned based on GOP strategy. Show me the like from the left. You'd need to go to the USSR dictatorships.
it's not OK that one man's "Public Option" is another man's "Government Option?"
Don't start talking about healthcare Ben.
My wife is an Australian surgeon who just got back from a year working in the USA (a large part of which I also spent over there).
We were there right in the middle of the healthcare debate, and while channel flipping through Fox, I witnessed some of the most gratuitous bullshit I have ever heard uttered on television of any description in any country I've ever visited (which is quite a few, as I travel for a living).
Just don't start me up on public healthcare and Fox.
The US finally gave up the pretense that they were not terrorists after the 11th September, 2001. The hypocrisy became too obvious.
[ben](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/open_thread_57.php#comment-3013…),
>"So it's OK that for Reuters, "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," but for Fox News it's not OK that one man's "Public Option" is another man's "Government Option?" You know, lefty news organizations slant the news all the time. So one outfit slants to the right and you guys get your nipples in a twist? Grow up."
Except that to call a person or organisation a terrorist is to accuse them of a crime, which allegation most often has NOT been proven in court, and would leave the publishing organisation open to a serious lawsuit.
The difference between 'public' and 'Government' in this context is slanted with the specific aim of antagonising readers to one of them and scoring a political goal.
ben,
Seeing how the 'lefty' position on health care is almost universally for single payer, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that semantic posturing over 'public option' vs. 'government option' is nothing more than reactionary affective propaganda?
Ben #25 may be excused such knowledge about the IRA being partially funded* by Americans who donated to their cause if he is under, say, 30 years of age or not from the UK or Ireland.
See for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm
Obviously most of the funding was given and spent in the 70's and 80's when the terrorists were most active, and undoubtedly has fallen dramatically in the last decade.
*Other sources of funding included extortion and criminal activities of various sorts.
The Australian publishing lies again:
"..published observations by Riccardo Riva from Delft in The Netherlands and international colleagues who use satellite technology to measure actual global sea level rise in this same decade to be in the order of 1mm a year,..."
Riva's paper:
"...we model the distinct regional signatures or fingerprints of relative sea-level (RSL) change, obtaining maxima at low latitudes between ±40° N/S, but with particularly strong regional patterns. We estimate that the total ice and water mass loss from the continents is causing global mean sea-level to rise by 1.0 ± 0.4 mm/yr."
So The Australian has published two anti-facts:
- Riva isn't using direct satellite measurements
- Riva has not said total average sea level rise is 1mm/year, he said ice/water mass loss from land causes this much of the observed sea level change, which is 3.2mm/year, according to CSIRO:
Does Monash University enforce any academic standards on its employees?
The Australian [achieves another low today](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/political-interference-wil…) by comparing climate scientists to Nazi eugenicists, though the author attempts a mealy-mouthed backaway from his own analogy:
"Political interference against scientific objectivity is insidious and may ultimately deliver hideous outcomes. It is common in climate change debate for lesser intellects to label those who dare to question present climate science orthodoxy as deniers, making the implicit association between climate sceptics and Holocaust deniers.
Such accusers probably are unaware of the savage irony in this epithet, in that German academics and scientists compliant with government policy were intimately involved in the formulation and development of Nazi racial policy, and, as historians have commented, the Nazi regime brought boom-time conditions for scientists from racial anthropologists, biologists and economists who were able to contribute to this aspect of the regime's policies. Those academics who were outspoken were removed by the Gestapo.
I do not offer these thoughts as being analogous to present climate debate but by way of caution to politicians who may be unwilling to allow debate, and scientists who may be unduly influenced by funding sources."
The author, Michael Asten, is apparently a professorial fellow of geosciences at Monash. Very sad to see an academic so blatantly traducing the work and reputation of his scientific colleagues. He hits some of the other bingo-card spots as well (water vapour feedback, cosmic rays). Apparently he [has form](http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/greenblog/index.php/theaustralia…) when it comes to misrepresenting the work of others.
He also provides unwitting irony:
"...provide a timely example on the need for scientific objectivity".
Yes Michael, thanks for the example: you've blatantly misrepresented a scientist's work (Riva's) to support your politics. You've misrepresented Dr Clive Spash as a scientist (he's an economist) and misrepresented the nature of his dispute with CSIRO (the publication of an economic paper addressing matters of government policy).
Your misinterpretation of Riva's work would indicate you are in denial as to the facts of sea level rise. This has nothing to do with the Nazis (I mean, WTF?) and everything to do with a failure on your part to apply objectivity and rational analysis to the matter at hand.
Well done Vince, Asten only made one challenge to the science, you might expect he could at least [fact check that one claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/open_thread_57.php#comment-3015…).
Asten scores nought from one in science on this peice, and the Oz's tally is even worse.
Besides getting his science wrong Asten has got the wrong end of the stick and is almost [five years too late](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1568867.htm) to the party on looking at governmnet gags on climate science:
>*While industry players claim to have the inside running on greenhouse policy, the scientific experts say they're being silenced. Calls for reducing greenhouse emissions are landing some of the world's leading scientists in trouble. Last month in the US, NASA's chief climate change scientist claimed the Bush administration was trying to stop him from speaking out after he called for cuts. And as Four Corners will reveal tonight, leading Australian scientists claim they're being gagged too.*
Fox viewers are less well-informed; however,
"...None of the news networks fared well when it came to combatting misinformation..."
But Fox News stood out among them.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/908391--watching-fox-news-lea…
Plimer and Carter, now somewhat discredited, have been eclipsed by Asten as the pin up boy of geological scepticism as evidenced by todayâs comments. I have noted that Asten has had a free run to date as evidenced by the two articles in December 2009 on the research by Pearson et al.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-scienc…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/more-evidence-co2-not-culp…
While the articles received wide coverage in the denialist blogs there was almost no rebuttal elsewhere that I could see, aside from Person and colleagues in a letter-to-the-editor column.
Is there someone out there with nous and knowledge who can effectively challenge Astenâs arguments in the public sphere? Just a whiff of scientific credibility allows the sceptics to plump out their veneer thin arguments.
I emailed Asten pointing out that he misrepresented Riva et al. He replied that he is speaking with paper now to issue a correction. Let's see what transpires.
>*He replied that he is speaking with paper now to issue a correction*
A correction that would totaly undermine the Oz's print heading, which reads:
*"Political interference at CSIRO with will cripple debate on climate science".*
I note that the online version now reads:
*"Political interference will cripple climate debate"*
Down the memory hole.
Thanks to James Haughton, I had missed the rebuttal in your link. Overall Asten's articles published in the Australian have received little attention aside from the denialists. I really hope that someone can take him on although I wouldn't count on it being published in The Australian with its 'balanced' coverage of climate science.
1) Dinner Tuesday at AGU was with Naomi Oreseskes and her coauthor Erik Conway. Naomi had a good time in Oz. She had fun pointing out that she was after all originally a geologist, hence was not overly impressed by certain Oz folks.
2) And just for fun, since open thread, people may find interesting this chronology of George Mason University's handling of plagiarism complain against Wegman amusing.
Among other things, one can find a good example of why posting on Facebook might not be a good idea.
If they don't like "denialist", how about "blithering idiot"?
I'm willing to compromise.
Are they?
Wow, don't you realise that calling them "blithering idiots" is just the same as calling them holocaust deniers, because many holocaust deniers are also blithering idiots (apart from the ones who get published in Quadrant)? Have you no shame?
> > So Reuters tries NOT to scare people but Fox is alarmist and tries to frighten people.
> Are you scared by claims of terrorist attacks?
I must admit hoping for some reading comprehension from ben dover here was rather optimistic on my behalf.
ben dover, "Fox is alarmist and tries to scare people" doesn't change if I am scared of terrorists or not.
Just keep taking the pink pill from the elite rightwing and swallow all they feed you.
Go Green,KILL PEOPLE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNMJOhl79XM
The IRA has been consistently classified by the British government as a terrorist organisation since 1975. Individual attacks made by the IRA against Britain have been described as terrorism ever since the 1971, at least.
Re. 47 wintermute
Yep.
Wow, you're talking utter bollocks, and I should know as I grew up while The Troubles were happening. Look up the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.
At Wiki:
ben:
> Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist."
ben has a point. Similarly, one universe's laws of physics are another universe's religious bullshit! I can see how that principle applies if ben is, in fact, living in another universe.
-- frank
ben,, you still there:
>*I also note that ben completely avoided the example of fox's climate dictates. Perhaps that was a little too hard for ben to compare to other news slanting.
Even his public option comparison is not like with like. Fox dictated and campaigned based on GOP strategy. Show me the like from the left. You'd need to go to the USSR dictatorships.*
Wow
So, you think the appropriate thing for a news organization to do is say something like 'a suicide bomber, allegedly a terrorist, exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children'?
Really?
Just to clarify, when I say 'Wow', I'm not referring to Wow. I'm actually making an expression of total surprise and disbelief.
The distinction is when a particular person or group is identified in the report. If no-one is identified, you can leave out the word "allegedly'.
So, you think the appropriate thing for a news organization to do is say something like 'a suicide bomber, allegedly a terrorist, exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children'?
The distinction is when a particular person or group is identified in the report. If no-one is identified, you can leave out the word "allegedly'.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | December 17, 2010 6:18 PM
In the case of the IRA that was never a problem since they often claimed responsibility for their actions. In any case in the market example that is clearly a terrorist act so the word 'allegedly" is inappropriate.
Unfortunately there seems to be an ample supply of geologists like Asten willing to exploit their relatively lesser scientific credibility in the service of climate science denialism.
Well I'm not a journalist, but I think the most accurate thing to say is, "a suicide bomber exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children". I don't really get why you would need to include the word "terrorist" in there, since - like the Reuters fellow allegedly said - one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, but the "suicide bombing" works either way.
It's in the nature of the media to be sensational, that's how they draw an audience. Nobody, as was once observed, pays money to watch a documentary on Ugandan women weaving raffia-mats.
So even outlets like *Der Spiegel* writes stuff like: "If the current worsening of the climate continues, all of humanity will suffer â a billion people will starve."
A billion? Come on.....
"Some climate scientists even foresee the coming of a worldwide natural catastrophe...the chances of a return to the optimum climate are at best 1 in 10,000.â³
Still, that was in 1974, when scientists were convinced a new ice age was on its way.
Plus ça change.....
Rick Bradford, (who makes up quotes to [dishonestly represent material](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/david_karoly_-_talk_on_climate…)) should not be believed on anything he quotes. Ask him for a link to the source rather than take his word
And Rick, How about you do some [real work](http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-co…) instead of making these bogus claims.
I note you have no problem with Fox News acting in a neo-Pravda manner, running on GOP strategy.
And regarding Fox's climate dictators, perhaps you can help me out to understand Fox's position. Fox dictates that warming should be called into question, but the evidence of warming in challenged by what?
>*multiple lines of evidence showing unequivocal warming vs. ?*
You don't see a problem with this dictate Rick? Can you provide the compelling evidence that demands some vague, unsupported "skeptic" allusion contradicting every finding of warming?
Why be so vague, if not that they have no sound evidence contradicting the science?
The ranting spambot that is Jo Nova has been let off the leash by The Australian today.Once again fails to address McKnights specifics.
I note that Michael Asten's correction appeared in today's letter column in The Australian and can be be best described as deliberately obscure. The text, in its entirety, is below.
"It has been pointed out to me that I erred in The Australian today, in that in quoting the work of Riccardo Riva I failed to consider the added sea level rise associated with expansion of the oceans as they warm. The discrepancy is smaller than I give (ie, a factor of two to 2.5 rather than 5)."
Thanks for clearing that up there...
pough -- "I don't really get why you would need to include the word "terrorist" in there, since - like the Reuters fellow allegedly said - one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, but the "suicide bombing" works either way."
It's the suicide bomber pulling the pin in a marketplace full of women and children that identifies the perpetrator of the act as a terrorist. The point was to instill terror in order to make political gain. He/she could not be said to have been in combat IMHO.
A freedom fighter has a tendency to shoot at military tagets.
bill,
>"So, you think the appropriate thing for a news organization to do is say something like 'a suicide bomber, allegedly a terrorist, exploded a bomb in a market today, killing and injuring dozens of children'?"
Well, last count, there were a LOT more ways of carrying out terrorism. And until the Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombings and Islamic Fundamentalists popularised them, they were surprisingly rare, and despite all the media attention, a LOT more terrorism is carried out by different means.
It seems to me you are deliberately confounding the issue. If you have a person under suspicion of, or charged with, carrying out a terrorist attack, that person is an 'alleged' terrorist, until charges are proven in court. If you have an organisation accused of organising or funding terrorist attacks, those again are just allegations until proven in court.
Even when 'crimes' are proven in court, views can differ. IRA were terrorists to the English and largely freedom fighters to the Irish and the Americans who funded them. Chechnians are terrorists to Russia and freedom fighters to most of the rest of the world. Several Uighur organisations are terrorists to China and freedom fighters to the rest of the world. E.T.A. is recognised as a terrorist organisation by every western country, but to Basque independentists they are freedom fighters. You have the same issue with the PKK, the KLA, and so on...
What do you think of suicide bombers who blow themselves up at American checkpoints in Iraq, or Afghanistan? They are targeting military personnel... Are they terrorists? Pause a moment to look through the media frenzy and take note of how often attacks on military personnel are labelled as 'terrorist' for the sake of propaganda. Is a military unit from an occupying force not a valid target for an insurgency?
What about Wikileaks and Julian Assange, accused of being terrorists by several commentators in the recent past. They have never killed anyone or bombed anything.
Yes, of course, though they were freedom fighters when they were doing it to soldiers of the soviet union ...
(that is sarcasm, in case it's not obvious enough)
Except for the ones who use other methods. That's just obvious. Say, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?
> Yes, of course, though they were freedom fighters when they were doing it to soldiers of the soviet union ...
Indeed. In jingoistic fare like 1988's Rambo III, the plucky Mujahideen were quite literally the cavalry, riding to the rescue at the last minute in the fight against the Soviet threat.
According to wiki "terrorism" does not have a universally accepted definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
That makes it a useful word for politicians and propagandists; they can apply to anyone they want to crush.
["Extended exposure to Fox News makes voters stupid, university study finds"](http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1012/S00507/study-shows-extended-expos…)
Of course, as some of those who defend the indefensible here and elsewhere have shown, it isn't confined to Fox it runs to the News Ltd core.
Michael Moore denied that Cuba banned his film, "Sicko".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/18/wikileaks-us-diplomats-stor…
"A confidential US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks claimed that Castro's government banned the Oscar-nominated film because it painted such a 'mythically' favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a 'popular backlash'.
But Moore said that far from being supressed by Havana, the film â which attempted to discredit the US healthcare system by highlighting what it claimed was the excellence of the Cuban system â was shown on national television."
Someone's going to end up with an egg on his face.
Uh, yes. Seriously, are you really having difficulty with this? Even if you use the wikipedia definition, according to Hoffman it seems pretty obvious. Really? Freedom fighters can be terrorists. Terrorists can be terrorists. In fact, most people who are terrorist, are, in fact, terrorists. Not calling them terrorists doesn't fool anyone. Well, it fools a few people. But why go out of your way to worry about them?
It's surely obvious by the 21st Century that the term 'terrorism' is a political word designed to neutralize debate about the legitamacy of resistance which has escalated to being armed and violent in whatever its context.
When Churchill gave his famous "...we will fight them on the beaches" speech, we can be damn sure had events transpired differently that the German occupation would have condemned the 'terrorists' while the indigenous Brits would have supported their resistance forces. I'm sure both older and more recent Irish nationalists would appreciate the truth of that statement.
The members of RAF Bomber Command were also called 'terrorists' in the night area bombing campaign against German cities from 1942-1945, waged in pursuit of the larger Battle of Germany.
Reducing understanding of the world to the level of Fox News approved terminology is part of the linguistics of control that Chomsky warned about over 20 years ago.
Use of the term 'terrorism' only conveys that the user has their own agenda, although that agenda will most often though not always be that of an unwitting parrot.
bill calls everyone terrorists.
Vince and James #33-35: thanks for the info. I suggest writing a letter to Monash's Vice-Chancellor. This is what I am going to do.
As we enter the "Silly Season", perhaps we could start a competitiopn for the most stupid comment to come from a denialist in 2010.
I would nominate [Anthony Watts for his revisitation of his confusion about what anomalies are (and are not)](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/hansen-feels-the-need-to-explain-…), and his subsequent retreat to the Socratic Irony excuse. Tamino [nicely pulled the wings off this fly](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/odd-man-out/).
However, my current favourite for any putative award that might be formulated is Donald Rapp, who [believes Tim Curtin to be a "distinguished climatologist"](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/on-wegman-who-will-guard-the-guar…), and from whom Rapp has apparently "profitted" in his Renaissance Man self-elevation to climatological doyen.
I would be most interested in other people's suggestions for candidates, and for an award title. Perhaps our host might even start a thread specifically for the subject?
The latest denialist meme (as found at WTF, Goddard's amusingly titled Real Science and in an article by Christopher Booker Award winning journalist Christopher Booker) is that GISS is zigging while all the others zag, and this is on purpose because Hansen wants to be able to say that 2010 is the hottest year on record. The fact that Tony and Steve regularly check Hansen's stool apparently doesn't stop Hansen from thinking he can get away with it.
It's the classic denialist two-step:
1)Ask no questions of those who can answer
2)Insinuate fraud... because you were right about that last time, weren't you?
> Not calling them terrorists doesn't fool anyone.
Calling them terrorists gives them the propaganda they need. Calling them bombers or murderers makes them merely criminals with no other needs than destruction.
But both sides want terror in the populace. A scared populace is more open to control which government lunatics are looking to gain as much as the fringe lunatics in the unofficial governments like Al Quaida.
huh?????
Lomborg Replies to Dot Earth Readers (link), but I'm confused - Andy Revkin said he sent Lomborg six Qs, and I see 4 video replies, to *comments* (many of which were not questions).
Having asked a *question* that I wanted Lomborg to answer (namely, "who bankrolled&otherwise supported the film"), I'm bemused and somewhat irked.
No Worries Wow #41. I'm always willing to 'compromise' too. I don't like the word 'denialist' either. Not for the reasons you suppose. I'd prefer a term that acknowledges our rightful and dignified presence. There is no such thing as a 'denialist' Wow, even with a capital "D". Look up any mainstream English dictionary just to prove my point.
However, you will find 'alarmist' in there, and probably for good reasons. :-)
I think you need to 'alarm' your friend 'global warming' Wow, I think he has gone on a long long long holiday ! :-)
#78: Well Hell, Y'all! Billy Bob demands acknowlegment of his rightful and dignified presence, then uses his mainstream English dictionary (? conservapaedia...sorry diphthongs are so unamerican) to find "strawman". Hee Haw. Bless his heart. He's got to be a Poe.
Billy Bob writes:
>*There is no such thing as a 'denialist' Wow, even with a capital "D". Look up any mainstream English dictionary just to prove my point.*
I took Billy's advice, what do you know? [He's wrong.](http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0994406#m_en_gb0994406)
Billy you are in denial.
Billy Boo Boo Hall:
Amazing, the globe makes yet another record hottest year and Boo Boo thinks global warming is on a long holiday. Pure denial of the facts.
OT, perhaps, but this _is_ an 'open thread'... :-)
Somebody sneak something into the Nasa site?
I'm flummoxed by a link to the [Nasa website](http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primar…) that is currently making the rounds of the ... um ... anti-AGW blogs. As in, wtf? Purports to be a NASA page, from their 'big questions' section, the links to and from seem genuine, but the writing -- my goodness! Verbs and subjects don't agree, some sentences just don't scan, and in one paragraph the word 'cooling' (or 'cool') appears in every sentence after the first. As in, "Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to ... cause our world to cool."
Needless to say, both the tone and the conclusions (not to mention the writing skill) differ sharply from the other pages in the section.
Sure sounds like someone is trying to set up a 'even NASA says the ice age is coming' meme. What gives?
For Eric Anderson, a suggestion re that NASA page:
"Best bet is to use the 'send us your comments' link at the bottom to point out that the page on forcings is being deliberately misinterpreted (link), and that perhaps a little more detail on the timescales involved and the relative size of the different forcings would help to correct this. "
I've sent a comment to NASA re that page, but they need to hear from more people.
Thanks Jakerman #80 I stand corrected. It sure does look like a 'modern entry' - judging by the 'context' :-). You didn't recommend it was added yourself did you ?
Very Well. I exist now. Now, can someone please explain this to ole timbo here too for me ?
Like Bob Carter 'not on' the ABC, I seem to be banned from this site as well. Surely 2 such insignificant men cannot be so dangerous ?
Sinclair Davidson at Catallaxy recycles Terence Kealey's "explanation" for why climate scientists' behavior has produced an "international outrage".
A few gems from his piece:
Kealey might have something worthwhile to say, but his piece is founded on his own version of the facts so tends to produce a collapse in interest even if the rest is OK.
Here's an interesting link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-…
Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren't incompatible
A week or so ago someone put a name to the law/phenomenon whereby any gain in a process's energy efficiency is lost through subsequent increased use of energy.
Can someone recall the eponym?
Heh.
Typing the question gave me the key terms that I needed to find the answer.
It's Jevon's Paradox.
Erm, that's Jevons' Paradox.
It would still make the demand more elastic, Bernard.
Here's something I noted on Wottsupwiththat but I thought I'd share it here too. It's essentially an admission from WUWT that blog science isn't real science. We all knew this but it's refreshing to hear it from the horse's mouth.
It's regarding Don Easterbrook's errors in his recent guest post. Commenter BillD notes:
>Where is peer review when you need it? This post conflates the global climate record with regional records for the US and Greenland. Then it fails to point out that âpresentâ only goes up to 1905."
Etc etc etc. He notes a few more errors after this too.
Response from a mod:
>âThis is a BLOG rather than a science journal. Though some entries may contain errors at least here they are not hidden. ⦠bl57~modâ
Just read that again. This was voted best science blog 2008? They have a right to make errors so long as they're bloody obvious? Fantastic.
I wonder if GO has [moved to the AGW camp now](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).
I've missed several of Peter Sinclair's videos, so I had quite some fun watching a few this evening. One that I particularly enjoyed was from the [confrontation between Ben Santer and Pat Michaels](http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/12/ben-santers-beatdown-of-michaels-re…)... watch Michaels start to wither at 9:40, and watch Santer's passion begin to rise at around 11:00.
It's great, and I only wish that Santer had the opportunity to really, properly, point out Michael's dodginess with numbers.
I wish too that we in Australia could have more easily watched the original transissions. I would certainly have had the popcorn in front of me!
Wow, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
I was simply using a few terms to try to identify an eponym. Have I missed something in the background?
Jo Nova's blog is slightly more amusing than usual, with the absence of the self-appointed Reichssicherheitshauptamt and her Sicherheitspolizei.
> Wow, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
The point is that if you are using more of a resource because it's more efficiently used, then the demand is elastic.
It's easier to give up a holiday than give up driving to work.
Therefore Jevon's Paradox doesn't make an argument to refuse efficiency gains. In the case of fossil fuels, it may merely make it a delayed reduction in use, therefore, if anything, necessary earlier than you would otherwise expect.
Over in a guardian comment thread, there are a LOT of commenters protesting the complaints of Sarah Palin using "Blood Libel" (because it is used to demonise Jews who "killed Jesus") like this:
> But this article is political correctness taken to a ludicrous degree: the idea that the use of the phrase 'blood libel' should be restricted to those talking about matters that Mr Beaumont regards as appropriate is foolish.
Funny how NOT ONE OF THEM has complained about the denialist eternal whinge about being called Nazi Holocaust Deniers.
Nor any posters who complain about denial MUST mean "Holocaust denial" telling these people like the one quoted above that, yes, it MUST be used only in connection to the Holocaust.
Odd, innit.
Joannenova has a set of so-called "warmest year antidotes". More like infections than antidotes but anyway, this is what people fall for:
Strawman. The world warmed by maybe 0.2K from 300 years ago to 100 years ago, then by 0.8K in the last 100 years.
Straight-out lie as the figures I mention above indicate.
Straight-out lie. She could at least have tried saying it might have been warmer 1000 years ago.
Same lie as for 1000 years ago.
Some chance of being true but still a lie to say it WAS warmer.
Strawman. The oceans were also around 7 metres higher 130,000 years ago. Also, it took 5,000 years for the approximately 6 degrees of global warming before that peak. Funny how she forgets to mention that.
Straight-out lie.
Strawman. The oceans have also been quite a few metres higher for most of the last 500 million years, not to mention other effects of having a warmer planet.
By "bigger perspective", Joannenova apparently means accepting lies and strawmen and ignoring things she prefers not to mention.
Intellectually dishonest. This is an urban thermometer so makes no contribution to the calculation of long-term global warming.
Intellectually dishonest. Like a lot of other variables, a statistical sample can be used to estimate global average temperature anomaly.
Straight-out lie. The original raw data records are held by the owners of that data.
And according to joannenova's graph, the trend started more than 200 years ago. No proxy record that I know of shows this trend going back this long.
Not true. joannenova fails to mention that these cherry-picked short-term warming trends are getting longer and longer, first 20 years, then 30 years and now 37 years from 1974 and counting. She also fails to mention that the present warming trend (her choice cherry-picks out the Arctic) is now faster than the previous ones.
Straight-out lies, strawmen, cherry-picks, intellectual dishonesty, omissions of influential facts. Sounds like joannenova has the perfect set of infections to spread the disease of science denialism.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.
So I'm sitting in an oil-heated internet cafe, that I drove 2 miles to in a large automobile because it's too chilly out to walk, and I'm reading about the people who manufactured my laptop committing suicide in appalling numbers because of the inhumane working conditions required for it to be produced efficiently enough for me to afford it.
Somehow, "unsustainable" seems a bit too tame a word to describe my lifestyle.