Yet another example of media bias on "human caused" global warming....

[synthesizer-patel]

Yes, it is a study, BUT, CNN typically gives the minority a say in their articles to give their point of view. In this case, they deliberately didn't.
Additionally, when's the last time you saw CNN or another liberal news media outlet put out a story giving the other side their point of view on the global warming topic ?
I never have.

Clear, blatent bias.

Cazzo - perhaps you misunderstand science - its not a democracy.

Theories aren't adopted because they are popular - they are adopted becuase they explain the facts the best.

So its difficult to counter every report of a study that support anthropogenic climate change with one that doesn't - becuase there simply aren't very many that contradict it - and many that do rely on old outdated data so can be safely ignored (usually).
So you can't really blame the media for not reporting on something that isn't there.
That's not to say that the case has been closed on ACC - the current models for ocean/atmosphere interactions are very crude indeed - and the overall dataset we have is pretty small

At the end of the day, instead of being the rather stereotypical right wing extremist that you are Cazzo and playing the victim all ther time or crying foul when the real world doesn't reflect your predjudices - why not do something constructive - why not send these scientists data that contradicts them - or refute their findings some other way

 

[swivel]

People like Cazzo try to falsely give the impression that there is significant doubt and controversy over the global warming issue. There isn't. The tiny minority of scientists that disagree do not amount to a legitimate counter argument, they are mostly driven by religion and conservative ideology.

There is a legitimate concern over the proper approach to solving this problem, but that's a separate issue.

I am an atheist. I am a Liberal (in the original sense). I am committed to reason. I love the environment. I have studied the subject as well as a layman can. But I am not convinced that man has an appreciable effect on global warming. And a head-count of experts on one side or the other does not sway me.

I am suspicious of the people who counter with statements like your own. With an appeal to authority. I also worry that many of the people on your side of the debate betray an anti-human and anti-capitalist bias that has colored the environmental movement for several decades now. It seems far stronger than the pro-oil anti-nature bias that comes from the other side of the debate.

I feel that good research into water vapor as a stronger greenhouse gas and the effect of the sun are going stymied because of our grant approval process. I also don't think enough of a cost-benefit analysis is being done before we forge ahead. I also can't wrap my brain around the cooling that took place during the first half of the 20th century and that has occurred during the past 8 years.

Most dire is the tendency I see by an entire political party to base their entire philosophy on the Naturalistic Fallacy, and I fear that it is this fallacy which makes them see everything man-made as a great danger.

 

[leopold]

For the last 20+ years climate "experts" and the news media have jumped to the conclusion of "human caused" global warming whenever something goes wrong in the environment. That's not science, that's bias.

a consortium of scientists agreed as early as the mid '70s that if chlorofluorocarbons weren't banned outright that we could be seeing elevated global temperatures within 20 years.
the above mentioned gas does not break down in the stratosphere but acts as a catalyst to break down ozone.
it's easy for me to conclude that humanity is indeed responsible for a part of global warming, and could very well be irreversible naturally.
all the natural causes are self regulating, carbon dioxide and water vapor would decrease as the earth warmed

 

[spidergoat]

... But I am not convinced that man has an appreciable effect on global warming. And a head-count of experts on one side or the other does not sway me.... I also worry that many of the people on your side of the debate betray an anti-human...

You need to read up here.

And this.

If climate scientists didn't care about human beings, they wouldn't be trying to warn us about what's going on.

 

[swivel]

You need to read up here.

And this.

If climate scientists didn't care about human beings, they wouldn't be trying to warn us about what's going on.

Thanks for the NewScientist link! I already check out RealClimate on a daily basis.

 

[spidergoat]

With the axing of the CNN Science News team, most science stories at CNN are now being given to general assignment reporters who don't necessarily have the background to know when they are being taken for a ride. On the Lou Dobbs show (an evening news program on cable for those of you not in the US), the last few weeks have brought a series of embarrassing non-stories on 'global cooling' based it seems on a few cold snaps this winter, the fact that we are at a solar minimum and a regurgitation of 1970s vintage interpretations of Milankovitch theory (via Pravda of all places!). Combine that with a few hysterical (in both senses) non-scientists as talking heads and you end up with a repeat of the nonsensical 'Cooling world' media stories that were misleading in the 1970s and are just as misleading now.​

RealClimate

 

[Cazzo]

At the end of the day, instead of being the rather stereotypical right wing extremist that you are Cazzo and playing the victim all ther time or crying foul when the real world doesn't reflect your predjudices - why not do something constructive - why not send these scientists data that contradicts them - or refute their findings some other way

People already have on these forums.

Me pointing out the bias in the main stream media doesn't make me a "right-wing extremist" either. It's interesting how radical people become when someone merely points out an obvious bias, and desires both points of view.

 

[Cazzo]

If climate scientists didn't care about human beings, they wouldn't be trying to warn us about what's going on.

Just like scientists were warning us about "man-made" global cooling in the 1970s ?

 

[Enmos]

Just like scientists were warning us about "man-made" global cooling in the 1970s ?

What of it ? It's still going..

 

[Cellar_Door]

Hang on...

Originally Posted by Enmos
Even if you're right, shouldn't we stop, well minimize, pollution in general ?

Originally Posted by Cazzo
I don't like pollution, but I don't like obvious bias reporting on this topic either.
This "human caused" global warming hype is giving real science a bad name.

...I don't think you really answered what I think was a very good question: stating simply that you 'don't like pollution' doesn't count as acknowledgement of the problem. Why exactly don't you like it?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

People already have on these forums.

Me pointing out the bias in the main stream media doesn't make me a "right-wing extremist" either. It's interesting how radical people become when someone merely points out an obvious bias, and desires both points of view.

You're not an extremist because of that

 

[iceaura]

I feel that good research into water vapor as a stronger greenhouse gas and the effect of the sun are going stymied because of our grant approval process.

Actually, solar flux and water vapor cycles are both hot topics for grant approval - one of the biggest worries about CO2 is its potential to affect water vapor and rainfall etc.

There are areas going begging now that shouldn't be neglected, and (even more insidiously) lots of rewriting of grant proposals and revamping of research to fit it into the latest fad, and that is all bad, but the major factors influencing global temperature and climate generally are all getting funding.

 

[Facial]

People have the gift and luxury of accepting the views of the well-educated and well-specialized people.

If you doctor, who specializes in medicine, tells you of a medical problem about your own body, most people will not be dumbfounded when he/she gives a prescription or recommendation. Eating too much meat? Eat less meat.

Similarly, if climate scientists, who specialize in analyzing earth's climate system, warn of a danger due to a global climate problem, most people will not deny it. Driving an SUV? Drive a hybrid.

I am not a specialist in earth's climate, so I will adopt whatever the majority of what the experts say. The only problem is that there is a certain 'collective' nature about the problem so many people refuse to accept it.

 

[spidergoat]

Just like scientists were warning us about "man-made" global cooling in the 1970s ?

Actually, only a tiny minority of scientists in the 1970s advocated global cooling. It only got such attention because it got on a popular magazine cover. Global warming deniers love to harp on this like it was the popular view. In other words, it wasn't a result of peer reviewed studies, but a sensationalist media that gave it such disproportionate attention.

Global warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global cooling. In 1975 Newsweek wrote of "ominous signs" that temperatures were dipping, and a year later National Geographic suggested the possibility of a worldwide chilling trend. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years."

Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.

"Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates.

"Science is a self-correcting institution," Schneider says. "The data change, so of course you change your position. Otherwise, you would be dishonest."

Whatever Happened to Global Cooling?
​

 

[pjdude1219]

I'm biased because I'd like to see BOTH points of view and evidence.
Sounds like you're the one who's biased and not open-minded.

its not biased to exclude sides whose argument isn't based on science; its good sciencintific reporting.

 

[pjdude1219]

People already have on these forums.

Me pointing out the bias in the main stream media doesn't make me a "right-wing extremist" either. It's interesting how radical people become when someone merely points out an obvious bias, and desires both points of view.

what is it with you right wingers. you don't seem to understand it isn't biased to treat unequal sides with differing amount of respect. The group that claims the humans beings came about from aliens raping monkeys(which I hope to god that i made this up and no one believes it) should not be treated as a potential rival to the theory of evolution.

 

[Slacker47]

Cazzo,

I liked what you said in your original post about being brainwashed. It is quite possible that we are being taught facts that contradict the actions of other humans to instigate "heart," the all important 5 element to Captain Planet. We learned how the cosmos works, but some went to mine coal and diamonds for personal profit. Those who have "Heart" are able to combine thier powers into a toxic-looking fairy in tights.

Seriously though, environmentalists and many persons in the fields of earth study are wonderful people. They (we) only want the best for all things and of course, humanity. It is a constant battle between industry and our green mother. I think you have hit on an important tidbit of higher knowledge putting us against our 'enemies.'

Of course, if there wasn't industry, I would be out of a job!

 

[Facial]

Why do people call ordinary, decent people who trust the vast majority of climate scientists "brainwashed?"

The hypothesis may be proven wrong. I am highly confident that it will not be, not this time.

But why "brainwashing?"

Is the peer-review process, by definition, subjecting an independent scientific claim to the widest possible array of criticism that it can receive? And if so, why are there hundreds, if not thousands, of studies supporting the view of human-caused global warming that have withstood this process?

Could it be that the entire scientific community, especially amongst the circles of the climate scientists, be plotting some sort of conspiracy? That is one thing many would like to believe.

But frankly, it sounds about as silly as denying AIDS or tobacco-related illnesses, which were very real well-organized cover-up attempts. Usually you don't find experts finding themselves in a conspiracy of their own specialty.

Otherwise, the notion of a conspiracy is still false, purely by Occam's razor.

I am more educated in engineering than the earth sciences. But I do trust what the people are doing there, and I won't be a pussy to label their genuine consensus along the shallow lines of a "conspiracy."