3 ms·

Here is the main BBC article, scroll down to "Does climate change have a role?" to see what they say about the climate change link, which is very measured: htt

Here is the main BBC article, scroll down to "Does climate change have a role?" to see what they say about the climate change link, which is very measured: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47360952 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47360952 As the submission article says, in the UK a lot of the media coverage of temperatures 15C over what you might expect has actually been celebratory, 'cheery headlines such as “Fabruary” and reports about ice-cream sales.' I mean, you are certainly correct that a lot of media outlet are unreliable in reporting of science. I don't see why that would change your opinion either way. If an unqualified journalists writes an incorrect article in support of some position which you know to be true, you are hardly going to change your opinion on that account. And the incompetence of CNN does nothing to the overwhelming weight of evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion on the topic.

andy_ppp 8y ago
The GP conflates two things, facts being reported, and poor media coverage of partial facts or falsehoods. So therefore because the media report facts as well as non facts that means facts === non facts. Brilliant deduction isn’t it.
- sparkie 8y ago
  I didn't conflate them but specifically pointed out that my opinion on media coverage does not imply denial of science, and my complaint is specifically about media coverage of "global warming", not necessarily the science itself. However, replace "facts" with "The outputs of our climate models," because the two are very different things. There are some tangible facts about global temperature and such which are measurable and reproducible. The models which link human carbon emissions to the temperature are not "facts", they are estimations based on the extent of our climate knowledge, and they are under constant revision. There's the claim that "the science is settled", but it absolutely is not. There are politicians hiding behind media coverage which keeps telling us it is settled, which resorts to ad hominem attacks on scientists who challenge the idea, and of course, all of the funding in climate science only goes to parties who are interested in continuing the scaremongering trend. I personally couldn't care much about whether the science is accurate or not anyway. The climate is going to change whether we do anything or not. I put more weight on dealing with real problems that exist right now than hypothetical problems that might exist next century. More money will be wasted trying to prevent a problem which probably can't be prevented, than spent on actual solutions which deal with the problem at hand.
  - Brakenshire 8y ago
    > The models which link human carbon emissions to the temperature are not "facts", they are estimations based on the extent of our climate knowledge, and they are under constant revision. Yes, the models are under constant revision, to be able to make temporal or regional predictions, or to narrow predicted ranges for temperature, rainfall and so on, which are more or less dubious depending on how precise your attempted resolution is, but the direction of movement for the whole system is clear. The basic science of the greenhouse effect is well understood, and doubling the concentration of a major gas has a clear impact on global radiative forcing (that is, the energy balance). Actually you can only deduce no connection between CO2 concentration and temperature using complicated models and tortuous mechanisms to produce something which will act as a sufficiently large negative feedback effect. The very few scientists who propose such mechanisms are not seen as credible because their mechanisms are not credible.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      It's not really the science I'm skeptical of. It's the politicization of it which I'm extremely skeptical of, and since that political aspect is funding the advancement of climate science, I have my doubts that those involved are really up to the task. But lets say they are honorable and their claims are completely unbiased, and that even all scientists do actually agree (ie, we're not just told the lie "all scientists agree"), now what? The "solutions" being offered by the political left are of course, no such thing. You can't tax the problem away. Economies still need fuel, and they're not going to shut down. Those who would suggest that they should be shut down by force are creating a bigger problem than they think they're solving. The world they look to create is one where the life is taken out of living under dictatorial rule, because they are unable to grasp that such power claimed to solve one problem will be abused to cause others. Power corrupts. So if they don't rule by force, then people are going to burn fossil fuels, because they want energy. There may be successful entrepreneurs who are able to develop cheaper energy than burning fossil fuel and will "accidentally" solve the problems without the use of force. Bigger government will only prevent that from ever happening. I commonly hear the argument that "climate skeptics are paid for by big oil," but capitalists would openly welcome any competition to oil. Big government means more red tape, and more obstacles for entrepreneurs who might otherwise contribute meaningful solutions. Capitalists want less of all of this. The choice is between freedom and dictatorship. I opt for the former. News articles like this are trying to sell the latter.

andy_ppp 8y ago

The GP conflates two things, facts being reported, and poor media coverage of partial facts or falsehoods. So therefore because the media report facts as well as non facts that means facts === non facts. Brilliant deduction isn’t it.

sparkie 8y ago
I didn't conflate them but specifically pointed out that my opinion on media coverage does not imply denial of science, and my complaint is specifically about media coverage of "global warming", not necessarily the science itself. However, replace "facts" with "The outputs of our climate models," because the two are very different things. There are some tangible facts about global temperature and such which are measurable and reproducible. The models which link human carbon emissions to the temperature are not "facts", they are estimations based on the extent of our climate knowledge, and they are under constant revision. There's the claim that "the science is settled", but it absolutely is not. There are politicians hiding behind media coverage which keeps telling us it is settled, which resorts to ad hominem attacks on scientists who challenge the idea, and of course, all of the funding in climate science only goes to parties who are interested in continuing the scaremongering trend. I personally couldn't care much about whether the science is accurate or not anyway. The climate is going to change whether we do anything or not. I put more weight on dealing with real problems that exist right now than hypothetical problems that might exist next century. More money will be wasted trying to prevent a problem which probably can't be prevented, than spent on actual solutions which deal with the problem at hand.
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  > The models which link human carbon emissions to the temperature are not "facts", they are estimations based on the extent of our climate knowledge, and they are under constant revision. Yes, the models are under constant revision, to be able to make temporal or regional predictions, or to narrow predicted ranges for temperature, rainfall and so on, which are more or less dubious depending on how precise your attempted resolution is, but the direction of movement for the whole system is clear. The basic science of the greenhouse effect is well understood, and doubling the concentration of a major gas has a clear impact on global radiative forcing (that is, the energy balance). Actually you can only deduce no connection between CO2 concentration and temperature using complicated models and tortuous mechanisms to produce something which will act as a sufficiently large negative feedback effect. The very few scientists who propose such mechanisms are not seen as credible because their mechanisms are not credible.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    It's not really the science I'm skeptical of. It's the politicization of it which I'm extremely skeptical of, and since that political aspect is funding the advancement of climate science, I have my doubts that those involved are really up to the task. But lets say they are honorable and their claims are completely unbiased, and that even all scientists do actually agree (ie, we're not just told the lie "all scientists agree"), now what? The "solutions" being offered by the political left are of course, no such thing. You can't tax the problem away. Economies still need fuel, and they're not going to shut down. Those who would suggest that they should be shut down by force are creating a bigger problem than they think they're solving. The world they look to create is one where the life is taken out of living under dictatorial rule, because they are unable to grasp that such power claimed to solve one problem will be abused to cause others. Power corrupts. So if they don't rule by force, then people are going to burn fossil fuels, because they want energy. There may be successful entrepreneurs who are able to develop cheaper energy than burning fossil fuel and will "accidentally" solve the problems without the use of force. Bigger government will only prevent that from ever happening. I commonly hear the argument that "climate skeptics are paid for by big oil," but capitalists would openly welcome any competition to oil. Big government means more red tape, and more obstacles for entrepreneurs who might otherwise contribute meaningful solutions. Capitalists want less of all of this. The choice is between freedom and dictatorship. I opt for the former. News articles like this are trying to sell the latter.