Wondering how biassed the media can go - MMGW

[AJI]

Been following the news recently about man-made global warming etc. and noticed both BBC and Sky are severely biassed in their reporting of the issue with very little regard to giving a balanced opinion on the science.

 

 

There was a 5min section on sky news last night about how some 'skeptics' were huddled into a reporter's house whereby he would show, through the use of a couple of 'climate' scientists, how man was 'destroying' the earth.

 

One 'scientist' did a visual gag with two bottles, whereby one bottle with more CO2 in it showed a higher temp reading.

And the other 'scientist' went on blabbing about how the leaked emails from the Research Unit were not relevant in as much as their content but more of the hacker that managed to get them.

 

BUT, and here's the point, nothing within this segment of news tackled the question of how man was the cause and any evidence to support this. But at the end of this piece the skeptics were magically converted into true believers of MMGW.

 

FFS.

 

 

And as for the BBC, well, they are totally pathetic in their quest to back up the gubberment and its stance.

 

What happened to balanced reporting and the use of reasoned verified science in today's world?

 

 

 

(ok rant over)

[penguin]

no such thing as balanced media. This "fad" of MMGW is just another con to pull resources and money from the poor. Its a tool used to maintain control of the masses.

[Matt H]

Well regardless, you'd have to be a fool to think that we weren't having an effect on our planet. If anything, they're trying to get across the message of how important this topic is.

 

It's pretty simple, you put a jumper on - you get warmer

 

You fill to the atmosphere with a gas that traps heat - things get warmer. And colder, and more violent storms etc etc.

[michael]

You fill to the atmosphere with a gas that traps heat - things get warmer. And colder, and more violent storms etc etc.

 

Who is responsible for producing that gas and are they the ones being targeted?

 

Is it fair to penalise a minority of people in the name of a much bigger issue?

 

Do isolated attempts to look after this issue have any effect versus those who choose to ignore the problem or do little about it?

[penguin]

Well regardless, you'd have to be a fool to think that we weren't having an effect on our planet. If anything, they're trying to get across the message of how important this topic is.

 

It's pretty simple, you put a jumper on - you get warmer

 

You fill to the atmosphere with a gas that traps heat - things get warmer. And colder, and more violent storms etc etc.

 

don't get me wrong, we are affecting our planet because we're cutting down trees, polluting water etc etc... but, at the same time - a whole "industry" has developed overnight "concerned" with "climate change".... it's a multi billion pound business in its own way .... i've yet to see a recent nature documentary which does not mention "man" and "climate change" in the same sentence...

 

in the grand scheme of things, my personal belief is mans contribution to "global warming" is minimal compared to the affect of the sun, the sea, nature....

[tbourner]

This "fad" of MMGW is just another con to pull resources and money from the poor. Its a tool used to maintain control of the masses.

 

See what martini has to say about that!

[penguin]

 

It's pretty simple, you put a jumper on - you get warmer

 

 

with the same token, more "toxic gasses" will stop heat from penetrating the earth emitted by the sun...

[penguin]

See what martini has to say about that!

 

shaken not stirred?

[dr_jekyll]

the way i see it climate change is a natral occurance. a few million years ago there was a big freeze, and ice age, after approx 500k years ago the earth space now occupied by the uk had a sweltering tropical climate.

 

and what caused these changes in the climate? sabertooths tearing around in ther v8s, or maybe neanderthalls building power plants, or maybe t-rexes leaving the bathroom light on. NO it just happens natrally for reasons that no "scientist" can explain, so they make "theorys and then the theiving bastard government utalise these theorys to make profit from the chumps (us) they'r robbing.

[Snooze]

I still believe the world is flat. These "scientists" and their so-called "theories" are just trying to create a money-grabbing, globe-selling scam.

[Westcoaster]

Taxing emissions is just the method the UK government uses to pay for the current fashion for wars in the near East.

 

It's as pointless as previous regimes taxing windows and powder for wigs!

[Tannhauser]

Been following the news recently about man-made global warming etc. and noticed both BBC and Sky are severely biassed in their reporting of the issue with very little regard to giving a balanced opinion on the science.

 

And as for the BBC, well, they are totally pathetic in their quest to back up the gubberment and its stance.

 

What happened to balanced reporting and the use of reasoned verified science in today's world?

 

 

 

(ok rant over)

 

I think it highlights the difference between traditional media and the blogosphere. The blogosphere is going mental for anti MMGW (to use your acronym) and the BBC has paid it less attention.

 

A few years back, the BBC and other traditional media outlets tended to report every global warming story as a 'controversy'. In the interests of maintaining balance, it reported pro and anti MMGW stories with equal prominence. I think this is because journalists are mainly arts graduates who don't really undestand how science works. So if one side consists of a few scientists and the other consists of an overwhelming majority, it was still reported as a 'controversy'.

 

However, as the evidence has mounted and journalists have caught up a bit, I think some are wiseing up to the fact that the critics are generating a lot of noise, but it just doesn't amount to very much.

 

So, if anything, in the past they have over-reported the degree of dissent. If you look at the links from the last time this came up, you'll see that the marketing strategy employed to create this sense that there is a controversy was borrowed from the pro-smoking campaigns of previous decades.

 

To me, the internet is awash with blogorrhea on anti MMGW: I would see this as a result of lower standards of evidence and a blindness to the political motivations behind the criticism. To you, I guess the BBC is a state puppet that reports what it is told to (David Kelly aside).

 

I caught the tail end of that program that raised your blood pressure. It looked pretty dumb. I have seen some debates about the East Anglia group emails - it was on News Night recently. You must have missed that one, though

 

I think the scientist that you have graced with quote marks was actually Sir David King, who has a glittering academic career. That's like referring to Tyson and Ali as 'boxers'.

[Tannhauser]

I still believe the world is flat. These "scientists" and their so-called "theories" are just trying to create a money-grabbing, globe-selling scam.

 

You "also" noticed the "excessive" use of "quote marks" in this "discussion", then. " :)"

[AJI]

The thing is, is that we should be living in a free society whereby we should be questioning decisions and argueing to get the correct result....ie. house of commons for example - as a loose example of what is supposed to underpin UK society and management.

 

But what we are seeing with this whole MMGW theory is that the media and especially the governments are NOT discussing and challenging the theories made by these vested interest 'scientists'.

 

The media are usually all up for discussion as it creates air-time fillers for them, but there seems to be a total brain-wash going on and it is resulting in a one-sided delluded message that man is causing global warming.

 

 

As to date there is still NO direct evidence that the amount of CO2 produced by man is having any cause effect on global warming. I repeat NO EVIDENCE, NO RAW DATA.

 

There is eviidence that the globe is warming and cooling and that certain regions of the world are changing in terms of their local climate, sea levels are also rising, as they have been for the past 200 years. This goes without question and is accepted by all.

BUT, where is this link and the evidence that man's contirbution is the cause of all this?

 

The recent leaked emails from the CRU at East Anglia showed that the activsts that work there were trying to 'fudge' the results and computer models to magically show this hidden human link...but gladly they have been found out before the Copengahen talks.

 

But what we see with the media is that they are pushing the global warming message but not realising there is still no link or verified results that show man is the cause.

 

 

Some have mentioned that man must be having an effect with CO2....well, yes...but what the science does show or proove is that this minute contribution compared to the likes of the biosphere and the oceans, can not be detected as having any cause effect on global temperatures.

 

Its like saying if humans got to gether and bought a 1L bottle of water, and then tipped into the atlantic ocean I should be taxed for causing it to increase in level. Even though this level increase can realistically not be detected.

[Soop Dogg]

I'm no expert on the science of any of this, but working amongst many scientists, what I have heard is sentiment that computer 'modelling' is taking the place of science these days. It is NOT a science.

 

Forecasts made by computer models are wholly dependent on the parameters that someone gives the model to run with. A small change in any one of these parameters can make massive changes in the results of the 'forecast'.

 

I'd be much more likely to support the thoeries of MMGW if they were based on actual SCIENCE and not results of computer models being presented as science.

 

Added to that, the fact that on more than one occasion, GW conferences have excluded input from scientists whose research doesn't support their point of view, all makes me think that we're being preached to by people who are not actually interested in a balanced debate - the truth doesn't matter - they simply want us to swallow what we are told regardless of the existence of scientific evidence to the contrary.

[AJI]

Having said all the above I am not anti-common sense.

By this I am fully supporting the desire to lower emissions, save energy, be more efficient etc. etc.

For example, would I drive with the air-con on all the time, or drive with added weight in the car for no reason, only for me to have to pay in terms of lower mpg? No.

Do I recycle and re-use where I can, yes. So that I can contribute to a more efficient way of living.

 

But when I, along with everyone else, is being forced to stump up hard earned cash for lack of sensible approach to science and the vested interests of businesses and governments then I do have to rant off at times.

[Soop Dogg]

What annoyed me after the whole University of East Anglia thing was the Prime Minister contacting scientists there asking how they can 'restore confidence' in the whole GW debate.

 

Shouldn't he have been saying 'let's get all this out now and see what REAL, SCIENCE BASED evidence actually exists?'

 

Maybe that's too much like a reasoned debate for this govt. (Let's face it - they'd loose too much money in taxes that are based on MMGW)

[tbourner]

But what we are seeing with this whole MMGW theory is that the media and especially the governments are NOT discussing and challenging the theories made by these vested interest 'scientists'.

Are there actually any scientists who don't believe it then? who else can they ask for a counter argument?

 

Its like saying if humans got to gether and bought a 1L bottle of water, and then tipped into the atlantic ocean I should be taxed for causing it to increase in level. Even though this level increase can realistically not be detected.

I wonder how much 7 billion litres of water really would change the sea level.

[AJI]

I wonder how much 7 billion litres of water really would change the sea level.

 

Sorry, poorly worded example by me....what I meant was that if we all chipped in and humanity bought just 1 bottle ....it is having the same measured effect on sea level as the measured effect of human CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Matt H]

Who is responsible for producing that gas and are they the ones being targeted?

 

Is it fair to penalise a minority of people in the name of a much bigger issue?

 

Do isolated attempts to look after this issue have any effect versus those who choose to ignore the problem or do little about it?

 

I'm not sure the point in your first two questions, or the last actually. The fact of the matter is there is a problem that needs addressing. If it doesn't get addressed, then the future of the the planet is in jeopardy. Spend time working out who is to blame if you want, whether it’s us, the Americans, Chinese, the cows etc, but that isn’t going to change anything.

 

A lot needs to be done, no one has the answers right now, that's why a lot of money is going into it.

[tbourner]

Sorry, poorly worded example by me....what I meant was that if we all chipped in and humanity bought just 1 bottle ....it is having the same measured effect on sea level as the measured effect of human CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Hahahaha.....

 

 

No.

 

 

You can't really mean that?

[Thorin]

It's the cows man, the cows!

[penguin]

I'm not sure the point in your first two questions, or the last actually. The fact of the matter is there is a problem that needs addressing. If it doesn't get addressed, then the future of the the planet is in jeopardy. Spend time working out who is to blame if you want, whether it’s us, the Americans, Chinese, the cows etc, but that isn’t going to change anything.

 

A lot needs to be done, no one has the answers right now, that's why a lot of money is going into it.

 

[AJI]

Hahahaha.....

 

 

No.

 

 

You can't really mean that?

 

 

erm...yes I do.

The measured effect from man's CO2 input in terms of causing global warming is where excactly?

Only man's CO2 input here nothing else....if you can show me the verified results that show that this is the cause factor for global warming then this will be my last anti-MMGW post I'd do.

 

Like a drop in the ocean. Totally undetectable with our current equipment and techniques.

[tbourner]

erm...yes I do.

The measured effect from man's CO2 input in terms of causing global warming is where excactly?

Only man's CO2 input here nothing else....if you can show me the verified results that show that this is the cause factor for global warming then this will be my last anti-MMGW post I'd do.

 

Like a drop in the ocean. Totally undetectable with our current equipment and techniques.

 

I'm no expert, I've done no research, at the moment I'm only listening to what I see on TV etc. so yes my basis is very flawed.

 

But look at people like martini who claim to be studying this kind of thing, he seems to know what he's talking about so I believe it:

The amounts of methane that are measured from cows (beltching, not farting btw) agree with estimates when scaled up to the world measurements.

 

The amounts of CO2 measured are far beyond what anything 'natural' on this earth can emit (short of all volcanoes erupting... which they are not). CO2 needs to be emitted from somewhere to have an effect. It's coming from incomplete combustion. Fossil fuels. Nothing natural has produced that much. It's just a plain, simple fact that nobody can argue:

 

We are producing more CO2 than we were 500 years ago. There are less sinks of CO2 than there were 500 years ago (forests etc). It's just simple maths as far as our input goes.

 

As to what the overall effects of the increased CO2 levels and temperatures will be... that is what I study, so I will let you know

 

It doesn't just disappear. 500 years ago, levels were lower because it was before we started using energy in this manner.

 

It's not so much pissing in the sea, as pissing in a pool... day, after day, after day.

Whereas in contract you just sound aggressive and shouty, presumably because you feel like you're being taken for a ride. Honestly we may well be, I don't know, but at the moment I'm believing these 'scientists' you keep mentioning.