Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Interesting report on the way the climate change debate is presented in the media, in particular in this section about the false balancing that contrasts scientists with sceptics as if their opinions are equally valid:

 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/710/global-warming-spin-and-media#MediaFalseBalancingAllowedExtremeViewstobeTreatedSameasScientificConsensus

 

It make essentially the same point as Jim Hoggan here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

 

As Monbiot puts it:

 

Picture a situation in which most of the media, despite the overwhelming weight of medical opinion, refused to accept that there was a connection between smoking and lung cancer. Imagine that every time new evidence emerged, they asked someone with no medical qualifications to write a piece dismissing the evidence and claiming that there was no consensus on the issue.

 

Imagine that the BBC, in the interests of “debate”, wheeled out one of the tiny number of scientists who says that smoking and cancer aren’t linked, or that giving up isn’t worth the trouble, every time the issue of cancer was raised.

 

Imagine that, as a result, next to nothing was done about the problem, to the delight of the tobacco industry and the detriment of millions of smokers. We would surely describe the newspapers and the BBC as grossly irresponsible.

 

Now stop imagining it, and take a look at what’s happening. The issue is not smoking, but climate change. The scientific consensus is just as robust, the misreporting just as widespread, the consequences even graver.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat

[Greybeard]

On the other hand, John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser says...

 

“When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.”

 

He said that it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to their critics: “I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”

 

In other words much of the hysteria is politically correct, computer generated guesswork. Eagerly grabbed by politicians as an excuse to find new avenues for taxation and and by money-grubbing corprate entities for luctartive profits.

[Wildcat]

On the other hand, John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser says...

 

“When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.”

 

He said that it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to their critics: “I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”

 

In other words much of the hysteria is politically correct, computer generated guesswork. Eagerly grabbed by politicians as an excuse to find new avenues for taxation and and by money-grubbing corprate entities for luctartive profits.

 

Errr no. Your in other words section is not what he s saying.

 

As he says: "It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere".

 

The hysteria on this thread has come from people challenging "the unchallengeable", the rate of change is a part of the scientific debate and recent evidence is of the rate of change being quicker than the IPCC report suggested. Planning assumptions at Copenhagen etc rely on the conservative IPCC estimates of rates of change.

 

As he points out: “Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem. But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of crashing?”

 

Your conclusion is explicitly not what he is saying, although I can understand your confusion in light of the context of the highly misleading article where his quotes appear.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

“Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem. But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of crashing?”

 

 

So are you saying that it is 90% certain that man is responsible for climate change?

[Wildcat]

So are you saying that it is 90% certain that man is responsible for climate change?

 

No, it is more than 90% certain. The 90% figure is convenient, because it is a simple round number. It works for the argument, despite being a low estimation.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

No, it is more than 90% certain. The 90% figure is convenient, because it is a simple round number. It works for the argument, despite being a low estimation.

 

So if it's more than 90%, then plane has a less than 10% chance of crashing?

[Wildcat]

So if it's more than 90%, then plane has a less than 10% chance of crashing?

 

No, the 90% is a conservative approximation of the certainty of global warming being human influenced and detrimental.

 

The 10% is a percentage number assigned to the chance of a plane crash that illustrates the way we deal with risk.

 

They are seperate numbers the fact 90% +10% adds up to 100% is incidental.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

No, in the parallel example the plane would have more than a 90% chance of crashing.

 

That's now how your original quotation reads though is it?

 

But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of crashing?

 

 

So come on, make your mind up, has it a 10% chance of crashing or a 90% chance?

 

 

Warmists, can never seem to get their figures right

[NightFlight]

For all those idiots who can't accept scientific opinion, view it as untrustworthy, falsified or over-hyped.

 

Look at it this way, report after report has shown that it is much cheaper to act on the issue and it turn out to be a duff, than to not act on the issue and it turn out to be real.

 

In light of the overwhelming scientific opinion that it is a real issue, who's narrowminded enough to risk it all on the chance to say "i told you so"

[Wildcat]

That's now how your original quotation reads though is it?

 

So come on, make your mind up, has it a 10% chance of crashing or a 90% chance?

 

I amended my response as you were replying. See above for response.

 

Warmists, can never seem to get their figures right

 

That is absurd, especially given the example earlier of a sceptical paper that tried to measure something he had removed from the data and not finding anything gave his conclusions of no trend...