[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif Climatologists remember the warnings of the impending ice age, yet their prognosis is different from yours

Your are being selective in representing that all Climatologists have this position and this is incorrect based on some of the threads posted above. Your "their" is not all inclusive but sounds more like a Royal "We" pronouncement with expectation of no disagreement.

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your are being selective in representing that all Climatologists have this position and this is incorrect based on some of the threads posted above. Your "their" is not all inclusive but sounds more like a Royal "We" pronouncement with expectation of no disagreement.

It's not just me, though this article provides some insight into why you might think there is in fact a debate among scientists. Here is the abstract of a recent study published in the academic journal Climatic Change (2008) 86:1–11, by Max Boykoff, Environmental Change Institute at Oxford. Notice how, when he is writing to his peers (climatologists), he does not write as if he has to defend his statement that there is a scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change.
----------------------------
Abstract: Eminent climate scientists have come to consensus that human influences are significant contributors to modern global climate change. This study examines coverage of anthropogenic climate change in United States (U.S.) network television news – ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News – and focuses on the application of the journalistic norm of ‘balance’ in coverage from 1995 through 2004. This study also examines CNN WorldView, CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports and CNN NewsNight as illustrations of cable news coverage. Through quantitative content analysis, results show that 70% of U.S. television news segments have provided ‘balanced’ coverage regarding anthropogenic contributions to climate change vis-à-vis natural radiative forcing, and there has been a significant difference between this television coverage and scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change from 1996 through 2004. Thus, by way of the institutionalized journalistic norm of balanced reporting, United States television news coverage has perpetrated an informational bias by significantly diverging from the consensus view in climate science that humans contribute to climate change. Troubles in translating this consensus in climate science have led to the appearance of amplified uncertainty and debate, also then permeating public and policy discourse.
---------------------------------

I have put the full-text of this and another article from the same issue here for anyone to check out, should they desire:

YouSendIt - Send large files - transfer delivery - FTP Replacement
YouSendIt - Send large files - transfer delivery - FTP Replacement

 

[nibiyabi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rav /img/forum/go_quote.gif Everyting reported in the media is spun to some degree or another, you could probably discount just about any source you chose if you look hard enough for the bias. Anyway, how about an example from that bastion of right winged conservatism, the Washington Post to balance things a little

Excellent article. I recommend that everyone read it.

 

[Goh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rav /img/forum/go_quote.gif Everyting reported in the media is spun to some degree or another, you could probably discount just about any source you chose if you look hard enough for the bias. Anyway, how about an example from that bastion of right winged conservatism, the Washington Post to balance things a little

Rav, in regards to your first comment, I'm aware that no media outlet is 100% objective. However, we must acknowledge that there is a difference between the BBC and Washington Post, two papers that are known for journalistic integrity but may be skewed at times, and the Washington Times and American Thinker, which were founded to express conservative views.

I've also read the article you linked to. It was indeed very thorough and balanced. What is your assessment of it? I ask the same of nibiyabi.

My take on the point of the article is that skepticism is good when it forces people to re-examine their views and arrive at a more truthful conclusion. In this case, however, global warming skeptics potentially endanger the people of this planet by attempting to block political action until the science of climate change is completely airtight, which it will never be. The central figure of the article, Bill Gray, seems to me a bad example of a skeptic. He is portrayed as extremist, out-dated, and narrow-minded. Fred Smith, another central figure, is an extreme libertarian and too politically-driven. The article also refutes several points commonly used by skeptics, and describes the climate change skeptics as a very fragmented group.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif Climatologists remember the warnings of the impending ice age, yet their prognosis is different from yours. Can you suggest why this might be, aside from the slim chance that they have a much better understanding of the climate system than you yourself do?

I merely follow, as I have stated elsewhere, the findings of Selby Maxwell and Raymond Wheeler, who did their research before contamination of the field by politics, money, and the media. I have found their climatological predictions to be spot on, and I intend to follow them.

I like how you say "...slim chance..." to imply in a backhanded way that the scientific/academic elite have better understanding than I do. Better than yours, too, I'll wager. Remember that the Appeal to Authority is on the official list of logical fallacies.

Laz

 

[acidbasement]

Uh, this is a bit different than deciding that a breakfast cereal must be nutritious based on its endorsement by a famous actor. I wholeheartedly agree with you that climate researchers have a better understanding of their field of study than I do - why wouldn't they? The reason they are employed, at public expense (at least here in Canada), is to figure out what is going on in their specialized area of research - it's called division of labour.

If my doctor thinks I have appendicitis after giving me a physical examination, but someone on an internet forum thinks I have chicken pox without even looking at me, it is not a logical fallacy for me to get my appendix removed, even though I am appealing to my doctor's authority when it comes to medicine.

I have not read Maxwell or Wheeler if my memory is correct, but I assume from your earlier post that they have theorized on long-term climate cycles. The existence of such cycles does not make the idea of anthropogenic climate change incorrect. There will always be climate cycles of various lengths - from the diurnal to the seasonal to the annual, multi-annual, decadal, all the way up to multi-millennial. Human-caused warming will not likely cause the El Nino cycle, North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or any others to end. It will, however, likely result in a progressively warmer Earth in the long term, despite all the short-term variability that makes weather and climate so perpetually interesting.

 

[nibiyabi]

The logical fallacy of appealing to authority only comes into play if you claim infallibility, I believe.