Makes lots of sense and hands up just who thinks that our ABC is that much different
Cheers Comrades
Home » AGW and climate change » BBC’s biased reporting of Global Warming – the consequences
BBC’s biased reporting of Global Warming – the consequences
30 Comments
Welcome to the Sandpit
I love a good argument so please leave a comment
Please support the Sandpit
Do you feel lucky?
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Interesting how your video spends 1.40 showing pro climate change coverage from the BBC and the other 10 mins presenting non-stop beat up of climate change as a politicised science.
If sceptics want to start winning their case they need to stop making hypocritical poltical arguments and start providing the alternate science that better explains the observed warming.
For the last couuple of years sceptics have been arguing that the world is cooling from a peak in 1997, solar cycle has been commonly touted as the main driver. Yet this year is the join warmest on record globally, this decade is the warmest on record globally. Yet the sun spots are still at a low poinT in the cycle.
Please explain sceptics?
Sorry I meant ‘this last year’ above just in case it’s not clear…
PKD
It is the job of those making the AGW argument to prove their case.
As for your This last year is the warmest on record Try here
Fail Iain. It is equally the job of sceptic scientists to make a better case for the observed warming than AGW, as per Scientific Method.
It is your job to hang on such scientists every word with unwavering faith – ironic isn’t it?
in the meanwhile what offerings does your great leader, or is that current leader?, present to the people of this land?
1, build more dams, and
2, scrap the NBN to pay for the rebuild of Queensland
how much longer do we have to put up with the tool?
Sorry mate what you are suggesting about the scientific method is at odds with any reasonable understanding of that methodology.
All that anyone who is unconvinced about any theory has to do is to point out is flaws and any reasons why it is wrong.
Finding and developing alternative explanations is in fact not required at all.
Two or three terms in the Lodge sounds good to me I W š
Your lack of knowledge of challenging science is worrying to say the least Iain.
If all one needed to do was to claim flaws in a scientific theory to disprove it, then evolution would have been disproven by the creationists challenges to it long ago.
You share in common with the creationists an unwillingness to provide any alternate scientific explanation and unwavering faith in an alternate idea that is not based on any scientific evidence.
Hence your unwillingness to answer my original question!
PKD
I have a theory that gravity is caused by a giant worm in the center of the earth sucking with its anus.
The fact that you can’t supply any explination for what causes gravity thus means that my theory (despite it having obvious flaws) stands?
No Mulum M.
PKD is quite right. In your case you would have to explain why all mass has a gravitational field, ie. a worm, and that is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And the anti-GW claim – that all of modern science is wrong – is also an extraordinary claim for which denialists have offered precisely no evidence at all.
Quibbling about minor statistical details doesn’t even come close to satisfying the requirement.
PKD
Here is the scientific method Define steps Please read it carefully:
Please show me where there is any obligation to find an alternative explanation when a theory is found wanting by testing or the discovery of any flaws in the logic or methodology of the theory.
No JM and PKD, you’ve got it the wrong way around. Your lot has to prove these preposterous claims of planet threatening AGW. People don’t have to accept a theory by default, just because it’s the loudest voice in the room.
Well put GD !!
Guys (Iain and GD) you’re not reading your own material:
(2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses ā generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena.
GW is based on natural laws deduced and proven over several centuries.
What natural laws does anti-GW propose? What hypotheses?
Only that existing known natural laws are wrong.
What evidence for this ridiculous claim does anti-GW propose?
None.
Your lot has to prove these preposterous claims of planet threatening AGW
Lets get things straight.
AGW is firstly concerned with demonstrating that increasing the concentration of known Greenhouse gases will cause an increase in the average global temperature.
That part is pretty irrefutable given greenhouse gases even without man adding to them have been demonstrated to keep our planet ~30 degrees (from memory) warmer than it would be if greenhouse gases didn’t exist. Still people like Iain here still struggle with accepting the basic greenhouse gas part of the science.
AGW is then secondarily concerned with what the severity of the impact of the increasing average tempaerature is likely to be. That part is (IMO) varied and less certain, but lets be clear – the odds of the impact being more favourable overall than not are pretty damn small given the delicacy of ecosystems. After thats its just nit picking and quibbling on ‘how bad is it really going to be?’ on the part of the genuine sceptics (of which there seem to be none around here). Which is pretty lame of them frankly.
Yes I agree though, some claims on the impact are preposterous, but if you think there isn’t going to be any impacts caused by a warmer globe then you’re deluding yourself.
Very well put JM, Iain so rarely rarely reads through things he googles off the net before he posts it – or if he does he doesn’t understand them… š
Although some time back he used to put forward the sceptic alternate view that the earth was cooling because the climate was being driven by sun spots and the solar cycle. Now that has been debunked and the sceptics have no idea why the last decade was the warmest (sun spots were very low for last year) he is simply pretending he doesn’t need an alternate hypothesis anymore!
Its quite laughable really if it wasn’t such a serious subject…
PKD @7:10, I think you put it in a nutshell pretty well there.
None of us here are scientists, qualified to lay down the law, in fact most of those laying down the law in favour of AGW aren’t scientists either; Al Gore, Tim Flannery, and a myriad of self styled experts, culminating with author-to-be Jo Chandler.
At best it comes down to that your lot believe the science is proven, others don’t. The ‘others’ camp is growing. Even recent prophecies by ‘experts’ like Flannery are falling in a heap. It is beyond our gauge to judge who is correct. There are qualified opinions on both sides of the fence.
Unfortunately, the general populace tends to hang its hat on the spouting of politicians like Gore, Peter Beattie and Bob Brown. The left leaning pollies pick up the ball and run with it, and before long we have a panic of global proportions, one which is way out of proportion to any evidence. Remember, interpretation is not evidence.
Brown, Beattie and Flannery have all come to grief over their blanket claims that Queensland would be in a permanent drought situation by now. At least Brown hasn’t shied away from his unsubstantiated claims, instead now saying floods are also the result of AGW. With that announcement we should write off Bob Brown as a credible voice on the subject.
One argument of the alarmists that I do support is that, even if it’s not true, shouldn’t we do something? Well of course, it’s obviously beneficial to negate pollution as much as possible, clean up waterways, preserve wildlife, all those environmental concerns. We also must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, they may be running out, and anyway, why not find a better way?
Unfortunately the left eschew nuclear power, dithering around with other so-called solutions like wind and solar power, and then go back on the offensive, while still consuming electricity, flying in planes, living the 21st Century lifestyle.
The left’s involvement in the environment reeks of opportunism. The above clip echoed that. I’ve already stated here that after the fall of communism, it’s as if we needed a new scare. The video stated it differently, saying that the left needed a new vehicle.
Either way it’s a panic generated by far more than genuine science and concern for the planet.
oops, Tim Flannery is a scientist, palaeontology. He should know something….
Its obviously a tricky position you’re in GD.
On one hand you’re wanting to claim a neutral view on the science, yet your posts to date clearly show you don’t believe the pro-AGW science and would rather believe the non-AGW scientists.
This is furthered by your attempt to make it a beat-up designed to cause panic.
It really looks like you want to have your cake and eat it! š
Look, why don’t you as an alleged scpetic give us the alternate science hypothesis and asked in the 1st cooment on this? Iain has failed miserably and thinks sceptics don’t even need to provide a better scientific argument but we all know thats nonsense.
What alternate scientific theory explains the warming more accurately than AGW?
Sorry for the lack of proof reading there – above sentence should read…
Look, why donāt you as an alleged sceptic give us the alternate science hypothesis I asked in the 1st comment on this?
PKD, why can’t you accept that we don’t have to provide an alternate hypothesis, other than pointing to the long term history of the planet. This has happened before, and it will happen again. Your hypothesis is recent and requires proof, before you make us turn the lights off and go back to the caves.
No amount of carbon trading or other ridiculous solution will halt the next Ice Age, if indeed there will be one, although based on history there should be, but only a fool would prophesy it and demand that civilisation shuts down to avoid it, which is what the alarmists are doing.
GD if you are going to propose that CO2 does not absorb infrared (which is what you’re doing) you are the one who needs to explain why.
“One argument of the alarmists that I do support is that, even if itās not true, shouldnāt we do something? Well of course, itās obviously beneficial to negate pollution as much as possible, clean up waterways, preserve wildlife, all those environmental concerns. We also must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, they may be running out, and anyway, why not find a better way?”
Very well saiod, GD. I think there’s too much panic and (therefore) too much agression coming from those who say ‘we’re in deep shit’.
But I agree we need to do something. Eventually. I think we have time on our side and should approach this issue more rationally. Use the coal in LaTrobe for the next 10 years or so and don’t rush to close Hazelwood down. Find better (and lasting) alternatives to fossil fuel before we ditch that what has served us so well.
In other words, I think everyone needs to just chill out a bit.
Yeah well I’d be perfectly happy with nuclear myself Ray.
And GD pointing out that climate changed in the past in pointless given AGW allows for it and accepts that there are many variables determining the climate of which AGW is just one. How do you know the current observed warming is the same natural causes as before and that the CO2 as a known greenhouse gas has nothing to do with it? Answer is – you don’t know…
Good grief, PKD, just when I thought you were becoming lucid! Glad to hear that you’d accept nuclear. However, singling out this minuscule climate episode, and calling it evidence of unrestrained global warming is scare-mongering, short-sighted and myopic at best.
Perhaps you should adopt Ray Dixon’s view, that there is too much fear-mongering, and not enough pragmatic analysis of the current situation. ie, you don’t know either!
oops, I forgot to add… š
This might be the warmest year on record, but the records go back less than 150 years, so on the geological scale, that measurement is meaningless. Just look at what happened during the early Industrial Revolution in the New World, Europe and England, which took place in the 1700s. After a century of unusual warmth in the 1600s, the weather turned viciously cold in the 1690s, causing crops to fail all over England and the Continent. Throughout the 1700s, factories in England, Europe and the New World spewed tons of carbon and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through the burning of wood and coal, yet the climate remained unusually cold. In fact, it was a continuation of the “Little Ice Age”:
“Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect [sic] on those that lived near glaciers and the sea. ”
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
Looking at the current weather patterns, it appears likely that we will see the Thames river freeze again.
~~~
Well done GD, stick your head in the sand, repeat the chant ‘it’s all scare mongering’ and refuse to consider the science. Obviously there is little point wasting breath with you further – you and Iain make a fine double act as AGW creationists! Keep the faith there!
Oh, and I also forgot to add … š