I am glad you posted this. If it did change anyone's mind on climate change, I suggest they become less emotional and instead look at the evidence.
The US is currently in a drought of intense hurricane's. The last category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall in the US was 2005. The 7 years without such a hurricane is the longest in over a century. The amount of major hurricane's in the past 10 years in the US - is well below average.
But, that doesn't matter, becuse we can simply blame anything on climate change without consulting the data first, and the liberal media will go along with it.
Essentially I agree with you. The media tends to focus on the weather, when the issue is climate.
I am just surprised you would single out the "liberal" media. I have no doubt that you are much more aware of what the right wing media is saying, but I have some vague memory of Glen Beck mocking climate change because of unseasonable snow and cold weather.
I could have posted any number of similar headlines, but picked on this one because I thought Bloomberg Businessweek was right wing.
It is too bad, that the most of the media and most liberal politicians, point to this disaster as some confirming evidence of climate change. Mayor of NYC (Bloomberg), Al Gore, NYC senators, many major newspapers, etc all have suggested this. Yet, the fact remains that there have been less major hurricane's the past decade than normal over 100 years.
OK FOLKS I am goin to go a little red-necked -add a little spice
May I suggest before I blow another mental gasket over that right winged&(*&&&*)Al Gore who (bought off -my opinion) a Nobel Peace prize or that gutless left winged Susuki who runs from any intelligent conversation(my comments based on first hand comments heard from Dr. Tim Ball) - check out Friends of science (friendsofscience.org) It appears to be a fact based - non partisan organization that actually has some real things to say about Climate change. That will actually tell you how politicians and media "play" the weather.
And now more of the story....The way the media(pick your direction) uses events to build sensational stories(as above) is for me frustrating as in it, the real facts appear to be all but ignored. Fear mongering and/or lime lighting pseudo celebrity people like Suzuki or Al Gore - mentioned before - I believe do not present a balanced view and use their prominence(my opinion) towards their personal agenda I am absolutely thrilled that in this forum I have witnessed the differentiation between weather and Climate. Though only an occasional visitor I have found the friends of science site informative and much more balanced than most media(radio, tv, paper) that I get exposed to. Much of my livlihood depends on favourable weather and climate and deletion of the effects of the obvious(sun)in this whole debate just ranckles me backside. I sure do wish I had more time to discuss but I am afraid my work load is rising disproportionately to my income(bet my boss doesn't think so) till next time
Hey, my son just wrote on essay using some great quotes from Professor Tim Ball. It is indeed frustrating how facts are ignored when dealing with environmental issues. It was disheartning to learn how scientists too fall on one side of the other instead of just dealing with facts. I love science because I thought it to be irrefutable until further disoveries came along not irrefutable until the next political group highjacks it. Oh Lori, so many disappointments to carry.
OK so I will disagree with EVERYONE on this. I am sure this also has been discussed before on this blog and I will repeat what has been said before but...oh well...I will do it anyway. It seems that we are blaming the "liberal media" for anything to do with climate change or in Lori's case a political group. First of all I have no idea what is meant by "liberal media" except I imagine that it is every journalist who does not work for Fox News or Sun Newsnetwork. Is this accurate? Is this what is meant by "liberal media"? I would really like to know.
The point I actually want to make is that the media is simply reporting what most scientists are saying. Tim Ball may be completely right for all I know, but he would be in the minority in the science community on this one. Why are we blaming the media and only the media for talking about climate change. If we want to blame people it should be the scientists themselves. They are the ones making the errors.
I read through a few of the articles by Tim Ball and found them interesting. I then heard a lecture by James Hansen and found that interesting. Both look at the same information and see something completely different. More scientists see what James Hansen sees, and then that gets reported. Why is the media the bad guy or a political party the bad guy on this one? Why shouldn't the scientists be the bad guys?
1) CAB, it would be a new low indeed for Westgate if the reason a student is marked down is because he goes against the mainstream, rather than the quality of his research and the integrity of his logic.
2) Karl, so you appreciate the Friends of Science -- non-partisan, fact based. Have you checked them out on "Source Watch"? Why would you rate their credibility higher than that of the IPCC? The IPCC would also purport to be "non-partisan, fact based".
3) Lori, Science never has been about facts (sorry). It has always been about theories. So it's a fact that my garden tomatoes did well this year, but that's not science. Science has theorized that this occurs because of some need for phosphate within the plant, but that's really a theory. It may have been that my tomatoes did better because I planted them at the appropriate time in terms of the phase of the moon (there are people who believe this). The scientist formulating the fertilizer is committed to the phosphate theory rather than the moon phase theory because it better explains his own observations, and so he proceeds with developing the fertilizer. I could go on. The important point here with respect to climate change is that, I the tomato grower, won't know as much about the support for the plant food theory of plant growth as the scientist, but I will likely know more than the consumer. Now if the person telling me about the plant food theory is a scientist, I had better pay more attention than if he is a salesman, and if his paycheck comes from Monsanto, I need to be very careful -- albeit everything the Monsanto salesman tells me may be true. Most of our climate information comes from Monsanto salesmen.
4) I'm with Mark. Please help. What is meant by "liberal media"?
I am glad you posted this. If it did change anyone's mind on climate change, I suggest they become less emotional and instead look at the evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe US is currently in a drought of intense hurricane's. The last category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall in the US was 2005. The 7 years without such a hurricane is the longest in over a century. The amount of major hurricane's in the past 10 years in the US - is well below average.
But, that doesn't matter, becuse we can simply blame anything on climate change without consulting the data first, and the liberal media will go along with it.
Essentially I agree with you. The media tends to focus on the weather, when the issue is climate.
ReplyDeleteI am just surprised you would single out the "liberal" media. I have no doubt that you are much more aware of what the right wing media is saying, but I have some vague memory of Glen Beck mocking climate change because of unseasonable snow and cold weather.
I could have posted any number of similar headlines, but picked on this one because I thought Bloomberg Businessweek was right wing.
It is too bad, that the most of the media and most liberal politicians, point to this disaster as some confirming evidence of climate change. Mayor of NYC (Bloomberg), Al Gore, NYC senators, many major newspapers, etc all have suggested this. Yet, the fact remains that there have been less major hurricane's the past decade than normal over 100 years.
ReplyDeleteOK FOLKS
ReplyDeleteI am goin to go a little red-necked -add a little spice
May I suggest before I blow another mental gasket over that right winged&(*&&&*)Al Gore who (bought off -my opinion) a Nobel Peace prize or that gutless left winged Susuki who runs from any intelligent conversation(my comments based on first hand comments heard from Dr. Tim Ball) - check out Friends of science (friendsofscience.org) It appears to be a fact based - non partisan organization that actually has some real things to say about Climate change.
That will actually tell you how politicians and media "play" the weather.
Karl K.
And now more of the story....The way the media(pick your direction) uses events to build sensational stories(as above) is for me frustrating as in it, the real facts appear to be all but ignored. Fear mongering and/or lime lighting pseudo celebrity people like Suzuki or Al Gore - mentioned before - I believe do not present a balanced view and use their prominence(my opinion) towards their personal agenda
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely thrilled that in this forum I have witnessed the differentiation between weather and Climate. Though only an occasional visitor I have found the friends of science site informative and much more balanced than most media(radio, tv, paper) that I get exposed to. Much of my livlihood depends on favourable weather and climate and deletion of the effects of the obvious(sun)in this whole debate just ranckles me backside. I sure do wish I had more time to discuss but I am afraid my work load is rising disproportionately to my income(bet my boss doesn't think so) till next time
Karl .K.
GB
Karl
Hey, my son just wrote on essay using some great quotes from Professor Tim Ball. It is indeed frustrating how facts are ignored when dealing with environmental issues. It was disheartning to learn how scientists too fall on one side of the other instead of just dealing with facts. I love science because I thought it to be irrefutable until further disoveries came along not irrefutable until the next political group highjacks it. Oh Lori, so many disappointments to carry.
ReplyDeleteOK so I will disagree with EVERYONE on this. I am sure this also has been discussed before on this blog and I will repeat what has been said before but...oh well...I will do it anyway. It seems that we are blaming the "liberal media" for anything to do with climate change or in Lori's case a political group. First of all I have no idea what is meant by "liberal media" except I imagine that it is every journalist who does not work for Fox News or Sun Newsnetwork. Is this accurate? Is this what is meant by "liberal media"? I would really like to know.
ReplyDeleteThe point I actually want to make is that the media is simply reporting what most scientists are saying. Tim Ball may be completely right for all I know, but he would be in the minority in the science community on this one. Why are we blaming the media and only the media for talking about climate change. If we want to blame people it should be the scientists themselves. They are the ones making the errors.
I read through a few of the articles by Tim Ball and found them interesting. I then heard a lecture by James Hansen and found that interesting. Both look at the same information and see something completely different. More scientists see what James Hansen sees, and then that gets reported. Why is the media the bad guy or a political party the bad guy on this one? Why shouldn't the scientists be the bad guys?
Mark
Just a few comments:
ReplyDelete1) CAB, it would be a new low indeed for Westgate if the reason a student is marked down is because he goes against the mainstream, rather than the quality of his research and the integrity of his logic.
2) Karl, so you appreciate the Friends of Science -- non-partisan, fact based. Have you checked them out on "Source Watch"? Why would you rate their credibility higher than that of the IPCC? The IPCC would also purport to be "non-partisan, fact based".
3) Lori, Science never has been about facts (sorry). It has always been about theories. So it's a fact that my garden tomatoes did well this year, but that's not science. Science has theorized that this occurs because of some need for phosphate within the plant, but that's really a theory. It may have been that my tomatoes did better because I planted them at the appropriate time in terms of the phase of the moon (there are people who believe this). The scientist formulating the fertilizer is committed to the phosphate theory rather than the moon phase theory because it better explains his own observations, and so he proceeds with developing the fertilizer. I could go on. The important point here with respect to climate change is that, I the tomato grower, won't know as much about the support for the plant food theory of plant growth as the scientist, but I will likely know more than the consumer. Now if the person telling me about the plant food theory is a scientist, I had better pay more attention than if he is a salesman, and if his paycheck comes from Monsanto, I need to be very careful -- albeit everything the Monsanto salesman tells me may be true. Most of our climate information comes from Monsanto salesmen.
4) I'm with Mark. Please help. What is meant by "liberal media"?