Current Carbon Dioxide Emission Highest Ever in Earth History

[TimG]

It's utterly irresponsible of these newspapers to allow political spinmeisters to print misinterpretations of these papers.

Some how I doubt you get so upset when political spinmeisters print misinterpretations that are favorable to the CAGW cause. You really have no business complaining if you are going to be so onesided about it.

[waldo]

Some how I doubt you get so upset when political spinmeisters print misinterpretations that are favorable to the CAGW cause.

favourable to the AGW cause? Ya, that science stuff... it's a bitch when science doesn't line up with the denier agenda, hey?

[TimG]

favourable to the AGW cause? Ya, that science stuff... it's a bitch when science doesn't line up with the denier agenda, hey?

The issue is when the media completely misrepresents what the science actually says no matter which side the science happens to support. Something they do in almost every article on climate change. Edited August 31, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The issue is when the media completely misrepresents what the science actually says no matter which side the science happens to support. Something they do in almost every article on climate change.

if one accepts your premise, it holds to journalists/media (hack or legitimate), misrepresenting to follow a preconceived position, or... because they haven't the wherewithal (inclination?) to properly perform their jobs/role. One is fraud/deceit/deception... the other is ignorance/uncaring. Off the top, I'm struggling to think of the likes of who/what, you would label as media "fraudsters", misrepresenting science to align with the overwhelming scientific consensus.

the misrepresentation balance you're presuming upon, of course, is not a balance; it's heavily skewed toward supporting the loudest denying howlers and wailers... science that supports the overwhelming scientific consensus is, of course, not "misrepresented" science.

[Michael Hardner]

if one accepts your premise, it holds to journalists/media (hack or legitimate), misrepresenting to follow a preconceived position, or... because they haven't the wherewithal (inclination?) to properly perform their jobs/role. One is fraud/deceit/deception... the other is ignorance/uncaring.

It's negligence... they do not have the resources, nor the inclination to report science properly.

[Michael Hardner]

Some how I doubt you get so upset when political spinmeisters print misinterpretations that are favorable to the CAGW cause. You really have no business complaining if you are going to be so onesided about it.

Well, actually that would upset me and I think I have posted some things about that when it happens. I concur that I can't think of any examples of that that were posted here, though I do know that they exist.

Please believe me on this - I'm an evangelist when it comes to holding mass media to a better standard.

[Bonam]

\

standard practice/routine for the National/Financial Post... they've always given their stable-house denier crew free reign, particularly Solomon. They've truly become a cliche, following... and obliging... the oft described anti-science mantra of the Conservative/right, lock-step!

But hardly unique to them, or the issue. Science, on almost any topic, is almost always drastically misrepresented in any mainstream media outlet, whether its papers, TV, radio, or online articles on mainstream sites. This is much to society's loss. You don't understand how truly bad it is until you're in the position of a scientist whose findings are presented in a mainstream media outlet, you read them excitedly, and find out that what they wrote is 100% complete BS and has not even the slightest resemblance to what you told the reporter when you spoke to him/her.

Bias is the least of the problems in science reporting. For someone to write a biased report, they at least have to have a clue as to what they are talking about so they can try to skew it. Complete and utter ignorance is by far a greater problem.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Bonam

[TimG]

if one accepts your premise, it holds to journalists/media (hack or legitimate), misrepresenting to follow a preconceived position, or... because they haven't the wherewithal (inclination?) to properly perform their jobs/role.

Journalists vary in their motivations. There are no small number of CAGW true believers who never miss a chance to play up the CAGW angle in a story and spend a lot of time giving platforms to the most extreme alarmist scientists while ignoring the more nuanced views of their collegues (anything on the extreme weather climate link, for example). Others see hellfire and brimstone as a way to sell papers. Whatever the reason the majority of the media is heavily biased towards exagerrating AGW and over emphasizing the extreme end of the "consensus". A few outlets like the NP and Fox News skew the other way but they are a welcome break in a media world where "CAGW propoganda all of the time" is the motto.

[waldo]

But hardly unique to them, or the issue. Science, on almost any topic, is almost always drastically misrepresented in any mainstream media outlet, whether its papers, TV, radio, or online articles on mainstream sites. This is much to society's loss. You don't understand how truly bad it is until you're in the position of a scientist whose findings are presented in a mainstream media outlet, you read them excitedly, and find out that what they wrote is 100% complete BS and has not even the slightest resemblance to what you told the reporter when you spoke to him/her.

Bias is the least of the problems in science reporting. For someone to write a biased report, they at least have to have a clue as to what they are talking about so they can try to skew it. Complete and utter ignorance is by far a greater problem.

agreed, inherent ignorance within the media is predominant; however, I assess denier slanted climate change related bias (agenda driven propagandizing), as greater than perhaps you do. It is a bias that plays on the unknowing and/or lazy, unthinking 'layperson'... where self-aggrandizing, self-styled, self-proclaimed, narrow-minded, pigeonholed, so-called "skeptics", accept with abandon, anything and everything from the loudest, barking, charlatan purveyors of denying bullshit.

of course, most/many scientists are hesitant to engage the media... these scientists are not inherently 'communicators', are not particularly savvy in dealing with the subtleties of snippet "journalism", or ambush gotcha, tailored for the miniscule attention span of the average joe citizen.

all of this, of course, is amplified by the ongoing loss of knowledgeable, conversant, 'science-writers' within the mainstream - the purposeful "gutting" by owners/publishers/editors, under the guise of cost-cutting!... a practice that, ultimately, finds media outlets regularly printing, as is, the feeds received from news agencies, bureaus, etc., Of course, this is where the loudest barkers come in... where the tabloid style hucksters come in... where the likes of Heartland/GWPF/AEI/CEI/etc., come in! Print it first... print it fast!!! Ultimately, in this regard, climate scientists are learning how to 'fight back' - a good, relatively recent example, being the Climate Science Rapid Response Team... where 'matchmakers' put governments and legitimate, recognized media outlets and accredited journalists in relatively immediate contact with over 130+ climate scientists... an avenue to bring forward highly accurate science information in response to government/media/journalist inquiry.

[waldo]

Journalists vary in their motivations. There are no small number of CAGW true believers who never miss a chance to play up the CAGW angle in a story and spend a lot of time giving platforms to the most extreme alarmist scientists while ignoring the more nuanced views of their collegues (anything on the extreme weather climate link, for example). Others see hellfire and brimstone as a way to sell papers. Whatever the reason the majority of the media is heavily biased towards exagerrating AGW and over emphasizing the extreme end of the "consensus". A few outlets like the NP and Fox News skew the other way but they are a welcome break in a media world where "CAGW propoganda all of the time" is the motto.

of course, we don't... we won't, agree on this. By the actions over the last year, in particular, the bias has most definitely not favoured proponents. Of course, it's a bias that can't actually be supported with sourced, consensus science. I see more and more examples of stories that go out of their way to present a 'false, illegitimate' balance, to project that an ongoing debate exists between scientists, where one doesn't exist. The denier/skeptics have managed to secure a platform reach, one that most certainly isn't warranted on the science alone. One only needs to look at what's currently playing out in U.S. politics... for example, one could suggest policy disagreements might be a legitimate point of departure between Democrats and Republicans, but the science itself? Is there a particular type/brand of Republican only science that sees all the presidential candidates lining up against a belief in climate change and/or anthropogenic caused climate change? Is there a particular type/brand of GOP only science that sees several presidential candidates doing outright flip-flop reversals on previous statements of accepting AGW? Of course, your suggested "welcome break'... the accompanying media-wing of the GOP, presenting a postured "fair and balanced" shtick, is anything but, particularly in regards to climate change/AGW.

[Michael Hardner]

Certainly the amount of coverage that AGW gets from the, uh, 'skeptic' side is out of proportion of the actual number of climate scientists who are skeptics.

I think that the US media has an element of challenging authority, just because they can.

[TimG]

Certainly the amount of coverage that AGW gets from the, uh, 'skeptic' side is out of proportion of the actual number of climate scientists who are skeptics.

The "false balance" meme is nothing but an attempt at censorship on the part of alarmists. The media has a duty to adequately explain both sides of the issue. The number of "climate scientists" supporting one side is irrelevant because the consensus has been wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future. It is not up to the media to decide.

[Michael Hardner]

The "false balance" meme is nothing but an attempt at censorship on the part of alarmists. The media has a duty to adequately explain both sides of the issue. The number of "climate scientists" supporting one side is irrelevant because the consensus has been wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future. It is not up to the media to decide.

Does this principle apply to every issue ? Because it doesn't work that way.

[TimG]

Does this principle apply to every issue ? Because it doesn't work that way.

It applies to any issue where there is a public policy significance. Let me turn the tables: do you think that anti-nuclear views should be frozen out of the media because the overwhelming scientific consensus is nuclear power is safe? How about GMOs?

[Michael Hardner]

It applies to any issue where there is a public policy significance. Let me turn the tables: do you think that anti-nuclear views should be frozen out of the media because the overwhelming scientific consensus is nuclear power is safe? How about GMOs?

How many anti-nuclear views are on the news these days ?

Do you think 9/11 conspiracy issues should be on TV whenever they bring up 9/11 ?

[waldo]

Certainly the amount of coverage that AGW gets from the, uh, 'skeptic' side is out of proportion of the actual number of climate scientists who are skeptics.

The "false balance" meme is nothing but an attempt at censorship on the part of alarmists. The media has a duty to adequately explain both sides of the issue. The number of "climate scientists" supporting one side is irrelevant because the consensus has been wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future. It is not up to the media to decide.

the media most certainly is being actively solicited, and is most certainly actively complicit, in spreading both fringe views and the wild ramblings of out-and-out nutters, particularly when its being done (knowingly, or otherwise) to downplay and/or denigrate the scientific consensus. The media role is not to shill for the agenda of those seeking to skew a (false and improper) balance. The media role is to recognize a consensus weighting exists and report accordingly... the media, on its own action/say/initiative, has neither the wherewithal or the mandate to project what it infers an appropriate balance is. You can't on one hand decry the terrible job the media does in reporting science, on any level, and then presume to advocate that same incompetency (and, in some cases, outright bias), should be allowed, should be encouraged, should be accepted, to determine and set the reporting around it's self-determination of what constitutes that balance.

[TimG]

Do you think 9/11 conspiracy issues should be on TV whenever they bring up 9/11 ?

There is a huge difference between competing claims over single events in the past (9/11 or Obama's birth certificate) and competing theories over what might happen in the future (AGW, Nuclear, GMOs).

[TimG]

The media role is to recognize a consensus weighting exists and report accordingly... the media, on its own action/say/initiative, has neither the wherewithal or the mandate to project what it infers an appropriate balance is.

The media should be adequately presenting all sides of the argument. They should not be censoring ideas because one side thinks that the other side's arguments are bunk. Nor should they use arbitrary metrics invented by one side to justify excuding the other side. Edited September 1, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

There is a huge difference between competing claims over single events in the past (9/11 or Obama's birth certificate) and competing theories over what might happen in the future (AGW, Nuclear, GMOs).

if, with respect to AGW and the associated science proper, you narrowed your point specifically to the question of sensitivity... then... yes, perhaps... we can agree on that point; i.e., future impacts... without direct regard, necessarily, to policy derivatives. Of course, this is a most complex issue for the media, in all its glorious ineptitude, to present to a public much more interested in, for example, reality TV. However, media presenting non-consensus views, particularly those spun by the hucksters/charlatans/howlers/wailers, those that presume to cast doubt on warming, to cast doubt on the cause of warming... those that go against the scientific consensus, that brings the media forward as a willing and/or ignorant enabler of a "false balance"... one completely and absolutely undeserved!

[waldo]

The media should be adequately presenting all sides of the argument. They should not be censoring ideas because one side thinks that the other side's arguments are bunk. Nor should they use arbitrary metrics invented by one side to justify excuding the other side.

no, your censorship meme has no foundation. The side touting bunk does not carry the day... does not deserve to be heard to the level of the consensus, particularly when the media is being used to challenge and attack the consensus... to project false reality to the general public. That is not censorship in any form/manner... it, quite rightly, simply reflects upon the consensus. If the bunksters had the science to support their bunk, it wouldn't be bunk... it would supplant the consensus. I find it necessary, once again, to highlight your advocacy for overturning the consensus through media channels... rather than through the conventional, establishment of scientific peer-review/peer-response. I trust this will not solicit further extensions of your conspiracy ramblings against peer-review/response.

[TimG]

future impacts... without direct regard, necessarily, to policy derivatives.

Actually, the policy derivatives are what matters most. If alarmists could actually stick to the science and remind people that the the science does not dictate a policy response then your 'false' balance premise might have some merit. But that never happens. The science is always conflated with policy in the media which means the proper balance is to give equal time to each side. Edited September 1, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

There is a huge difference between competing claims over single events in the past (9/11 or Obama's birth certificate) and competing theories over what might happen in the future (AGW, Nuclear, GMOs).

They're calling for investigations, protests... it's in the public forum. It's relevant.

[waldo]

if, with respect to AGW and the associated science proper, you narrowed your point specifically to the question of sensitivity... then... yes, perhaps... we can agree on that point; i.e., future impacts... without direct regard, necessarily, to policy derivatives. Of course, this is a most complex issue for the media, in all its glorious ineptitude, to present to a public much more interested in, for example, reality TV. However, media presenting non-consensus views, particularly those spun by the hucksters/charlatans/howlers/wailers, those that presume to cast doubt on warming, to cast doubt on the cause of warming... those that go against the scientific consensus, that brings the media forward as a willing and/or ignorant enabler of a "false balance"... one completely and absolutely undeserved!

Actually, the policy derivatives are what matters most. If alarmists could actually stick to the science and remind people that the the science does not dictate a policy response then your 'false' balance premise might have some merit. But that never happens. The science is always conflated with policy in the media which means the proper balance is to give equal time to each side.

of course they are... that's why I made pointed emphasis to the science, proper, in regards to sensitivity. You are really stringing the memes, hey? Science does not dictate policy; what scientists and/or scientific organizations (of note, presence) are you speaking to... those you claim are using the science to "dictate" policy response? Most certainly, when the IPCC ultimately formulates it's SPM, that is not a dictatorial vehicle, on any level. That SPM, of course, is simply a summary reference of the underlying science intended for policy makers... it is not policy on any level or account. What specifically are you speaking to? ... an example or two might help put perspective on your claim.

[dre]

Actually, the policy derivatives are what matters most. If alarmists could actually stick to the science and remind people that the the science does not dictate a policy response then your 'false' balance premise might have some merit. But that never happens. The science is always conflated with policy in the media which means the proper balance is to give equal time to each side.

Thats just not how it works or ever will work. The media covers "events" that they think have interest to certain viewers. In the context of climate science those events would be things like papers being released, new information coming to light, scandals such as climagegate, etc.

They are not supposed to give any side "equal time" nor should they be concerned about your subjective notions about "proper balance". They arent there to educate people about climate science. They are there to report on news worthy events that related to climate science, so that they can generate ratings, collect ad revenue, and make money for shareholders.

People that want a more indepth analysis need to go and look for it somewhere else.

[TimG]

They are not supposed to give any side "equal time" nor should they be concerned about your subjective notions about "proper balance".

Then you must also think they should not be concerned about waldo's subjective notions about "proper balance". Or do such statments only apply when you disagree?