Global Warming, Spin and Media

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by S.A.M., Mar 2, 2007.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/media.asp

    As further reports regarding climate change impacts reveal a bleaker future, there are concerns that there will be accompanying fear-mongering by environmentalists, green washing by some business interests, and spin by governments to show “reductions” in emissions.

    Some feel global warming is one of the biggest frauds of our era, with some even believing it is designed to harm the US economy and make the UN more powerful. Others feel it is simpler than that, and instead, climate scientists are able to make a lot of money by using fear as a tool to earn more research grants.

    Such a vast, global conspiracy of scientists, the United Nations and environmental groups/lobbies does seem a bit far-fetched given that far more resourceful, powerful and immensely wealthier corporations and governments (with their access to, and influence on, the media) would surely be able to counter such a tactic (and have indeed been involved in their own spin/propaganda attempts, which, even with their resources, are failing).

    A lot of time appears to have been wasted, and political spin on issues such as describing a reduced rate of greenhouse emissions as an actual reduction, risks is a false sense of hope and achievement.

    Disproportionate time is given to more fringe scientists or those with less credibility or with additional agendas, without noting so, and thus gives the impression that there is more debate in the scientific community about whether or not climate change is an issue to be concerned about or not.

    Leading climate scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have released major, definitive reports detailing the progress in understanding climate change. From the outset they have recommended that there be emission reductions. This body is comprised of hundreds of climate scientists around the world.

    At the beginning of January 2007, the IPCC’s fourth major report summarized that they were even more certain of human-induced climate change than before. They were 90% certain that warming since industrialization had been due to human activity.

    In recent months, it is noticeable how much climate change related concerns are entering mainstream discourse as this realization is becoming more widespread. Governments, businesses, public sector and others are all talking about it in some way or another, it seems.

    More recently, the mainstream media has generally been looking more and more at climate change, its effects, and what people are doing. The measures and tactics employed by businesses and governments in the past may not be as successful in the future, potentially. Is this a positive turn, or could there be other forms of spin and “green washing”?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Did that panel include any of the climate scientist who DO NOT believe the bullshit about global warming and human impact? If not, then it's just one more panel of biased people trying to push their own bias onto others.

    What I find interesting is that many/most leading scientists agree that nothing we can do now will change the rate of warming ....and that it will be centuries before anything that we do will actually have any effects.

    Changing or even slowing global warming is not like packing a lunch to forestall a bit of mid-day hunger!

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    What, this isn't happening already? Environmentalists have always been fear mongers. That's ok---it's what they do.

    That's a good question actually. There actually seems to be a large community of scientists who agree with global warming, but disagree with the drastic predictions made in the IPCC report, among other places. One of the blogs I read regularly is here :http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/. The guy who write is has also writen a book : http://www.amazon.com/Honest-Broker-Making-Science-Politics/dp/0521694817. He is a professor at UC-Boulder.

    The problem, it seems, is that many of the climate models are poorly constructed. That is, we know that the weather obeys nonlinear equations---this is how rainstorms in Africa turn into Katrina. This is also called the butterfly effect. Essentially, you solve a set of equations and get one solution, then solve the equations with slightly different initial conditions, and get a completely different answer---that is, small changes initially lead to large changes finally. From what I know about the situation, many of the long term climate models do not incorporate this feature---so in what sense can we trust the predictions?

    The problem in my mind is that a lot of what is being done is just not honest science. It is flawed in some way, but because climate scientists are often environmentalists, these flaws are often overlooked. This is easy to do when there is a scientific concensus. Many predictions of climate science can't be confirmed---for example, part of the Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, and the temperature in the upper troposphere has been dropping.

    The problem is, of course, that if the climate scientists are wrong, it will just end up costing everybody money, and if they are right, then possibly they can save a lot of money. So really it is a question of economics.

    This, of course, will be interpretted as an anti-Earth manifesto by all here I am sure. If you want to just respond by criticizing me, then save your time---I have heard it all before. I do not doubt global warming, I only doubt the conclusions of many climate scientists. Admittedly, I am not an expert in this area, and do not have neither the will nor the time to become one. I will probably go on being skeptical of their claims.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Can anybody name ONE scientist who can explain why the average temperature during the warm period from 800-1300 AD was one degree higher at its peak than it is now...with no SUVs anywhere in sight.

    Assuming of course that CO2 is the culprit, which I highly doubt.

    They used to have a freakin wine industry in England!
     
  8. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    What does that have to do with global warming?
     
  10. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    He asked me to name one scientist. And so I did, quite effortlessly.
     
  11. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Sorry, not you. What does the medieval warm period or the little ice age have to do with global warming? It was not a worldwide phenomenon.
     
  13. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    That hasnt been established. The medieval warm period coincides with an increase in solar activity called the 'medieval maximum' (1100-1250). This would affect the entire earth, not just the northern hemisphere.
     
  14. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    I have no idea what his explanation is.
    Just looked through his site and theres nothing on the subject???
     
  15. Tyler N. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    226
    The spin is ridiculous. It is quite clear. Global warming is undeniably happening. The question is how drastic it is going to be. Now, the most logical thing to do is prepare for the worst. That shouldn't even be politics, its just common sense.
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    The worst? Okay, what's that, when does it happen? And how do we prepare for it now? Please ...I'm waiting with bated breath!

    Baron Max
     
  17. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I think I agree with you in principle Tyler, but the problem is that addressing the problem in the way that some environmentalists demand would require a significant portion of the world's resources. This means a significant change in lifestyle for most of the developed world, COUPLED with China and India abandoning their current first world aspirations. (If England quit emitting Carbon tomorrow---the whole country just turned off---China would make up for these eimissions in (I think) two years.)

    But the issue is that environmentalists, to push their agenda, have always used these scorched earth type scare tactics. Fear is a powerful motivator, and many use that to their advantage.
     
  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223

Share This Page