Clumsy Media Bias Dwindling, But U.S. Still Behind the U.K.
A new paper by Oxford Research Fellow Max Boykoff shows that phony media balance has almost disappeared in U.S. climate change coverage.
But Boykoff's paper also shows an embarrassing difference in the extent and quality of climate change coverage in the United States, compared to coverage in the United Kingdom. For example, he found that between 2003 and 2006, UK papers covered the story three times as often as U.S. papers and were significantly more likely to present it accurately.
Boykoff, a James Martin Research Fellow at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment, released a landmark paper three years ago with his brother Jules, demonstrating that the "prestige press" in North America was misrepresenting climate science by usually reporting one voice attesting to that science and one voice denying it. While the scientific literature between 1993 and 2003 was unanimous in accepting that human activities were making climate change worse, Boykoff and Boykoff found that newspaper stories between 1988 and 2000 reported in more than half the cases that there was still a scientific dispute.
Max Boykoff has now updated that study and extended it to the U.K.
He surveyed news coverage in four U.S. prestige newspapers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times) and three prestige papers in the UK (The Times, The Independent and The Guardian).
Boykoff's first discovery is that UK papers have been giving the climate change story almost three times as much attention. During the three-year survey period, the three UK papers carried 6,922 stories on climate change, compared to 2543 articles in US newspapers. He also found that in 2003 - at a time when U.S. papers were giving the story "he said/she said" treatment more than 35 per cent of the time - U.K papers were quoting contrarians in only 1.67 per cent of their stories. In the time since, however, contrarian coverage in both countries has dwindled to a level below statistical significance.
In his conclusion, Boykoff speculated on several reasons for the difference in coverage. One was the political split in the U.S.
Also, a 2007 National Journal poll revealed that 95 per cent of Democrats and just 13 per cent of Republicans answered ‘yes’ to the question ‘do you think that it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?’ (There is an obvious chicken-and-egg problem here: was American media coverage biased by politicians or were Republicans intransigent because they were being misinformed by their newspapers?)
Boykoff also reported on the political manipulation of climate change research by the Bush administration and, especially, the intervention by think tanks and front groups funded by energy interests, particularly Exxon Mobil.
Regardless of the causes, however, Boykoff's research proves what we have suspected: the U.S. media blew this story - seriously letting down the people who rely on American journalists to show leadership - and give accurate information - on issues important to the whole world.
Like what you read on DeSmogBlog? Subscribe to our RSS feed here.
reposting Carl S comment
I hope nobody minds if I repost Carl's comment -- it should be easier to read like this:
"The problem is Rob doesn't understand the meaning of theory or proof in the scientific sense. I'd challenge him to "prove" the theory behind gravity, which is also quite impossible when one realizes what the scientific method actually does. Theory is the collective body of information and explanation that ties together observations, experimentation and conclusions based on a particular phenomena. Sure you can "prove" that if you drop a rock it will fall, you run 30 trials of dropping a rock and observe the results. You conclude the that a rock will fall if dropped. Excellent, you've just shown a rock will fall if dropped but not "proven" the theory of gravity. In essence all you have done is observed the phenomena of gravity but why it happens it something else entirely....
Climate theory is no different, you can easily run experiments and show within 95% confidence that
1) Greenhouse gas concentration has increased in the atmosphere,
2) that humans are largely to blame
3) The suns intensity has not changed significantly in the last 1000 years
4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
5) The atmosphere and oceans are in general warming
These are all within observations of phenomena, go one step further and try to explain all these phenomena and you build a theory. Tests further phenomena to challenge said theory, and build a stronger theory of explanation. Rinse and repeat, building a stronger body of science. That's the problem Rob, you really don't get it and I have a feeling never will, or you are intentionally being slow about it for purposes of self amusement. Either way kinda sad really, because all you end up doing is looking quite clueless."
Reposting my response
"Climate theory is no different, you can easily run experiments and show within 95% confidence that
1) Greenhouse gas concentration has increased in the atmosphere,
2) that humans are largely to blame"
Okay, I'll bite.
What experiment can you "easily" run, which shows that human beings are "largely to blame" for Global Warming?
For bonus points, tell us what "easy" experiment tells you human beings can actually reverse it?
Should be connected as in
Should be connected as in humans are largely responsible for the increase in greenhouse gas concentration; I'll admit I didn’t quite write it well enough I was in a hurry. But really I am disappointed that you have completely missed the point of my post. Your "prove me a theory" business makes you at best look scientifically misinformed, and at worst, intentionally deceptive. As for what experiment to know humans largely responsible for "global warming", I'll refer you to my previous post, attributing human influences in climate is based on theory and experimentation and likely there is no one experiment that can show much of anything. To point you in the right direction a combination of experiments in a quick and rough answer might include:
Exp 1) Are greenhouse gases increasing, answer yes.
Exp 2) Are human responsible for these increases in greenhouse gases, answer largely.
Exp 3) What is the heat potential of these greenhouse gases, answer varies but it is known.
Exp 4) Is the planet warming up and are these increases following expected modeled increases based on understanding of theory, answer most regions of the planet are, and an average increase over the surface is observed, some areas are warming faster than modeled, some are not
Exp 5) Are any other possible factors responsible for warming, answer, not with sufficient ability to cause the magnitude of the current warming.
For a better more scientific description see understanding and attributing climate change at the following link. It’s filled with science; conclusions based on experimentation and a presentation of accepted theory.....enjoy.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
I don’t need an experiment to know that changes in human activity can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.....will those changes happen or how much will a particular change reduce them are different questions though...
Yes, Carl, please keep "pointing me in the right direction".
Carl, first you arrogantly proclaimed:
"you can easily run experiments and show within 95% confidence that
1) Greenhouse gas concentration has increased in the atmosphere,
2) that humans are largely to blame"
So where are these "easily run experiments" you were just boasting about? Or have you finally accepted the fact that such experiments simply don't exist?
I doubt you have accepted that fact. No, you'll just continue pompously denouncing anyone who pokes holes in your ideology, as being simply more ignorant than you, and schooling us with your "brilliance".
"I don’t need an experiment to know that changes in human activity can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere....."
Ah, so now we finally have the true essence of your contempt for inconvenient scientific rigour. No, you don't need an experiment -- you've already cast your ideological lot, and no damn experiment is going to dissuade you of your cherished faith.
You know Carl, you talk a lot of crap, playing at the pretense of being the one, true champion of science, and sanctimoniously imagining how "stupid" you make anyone look who happens to call your beliefs into question.
When it comes right down to it, you've simply deluded yourself worse than any "deniaralists" at whom you sneer.
Increase in CO2
Increase in CO2 concentration over time (direct air measurement, not ice core) just one greenhouse gas, ill let you look up the rest.
C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf (2004). Atmospheric CO2 from Continuous Air Samples at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, U.S.A.. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Evidence for fossil fuel origin of increasing CO2 and not things like Volcano's
Gerlach, T.M., 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254 – 255
An article that touches on the increase in CO2 due to human sources, talking about isotope ratios
Olsen, A., et al. (2006), Magnitude and origin of the anthropogenic CO2 increase and 13C Suess effect in the Nordic seas since 1981, Global Biogeochem Cycles, 20, GB3027, doi:10.1029/2005GB002669.
but the best articles are here
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
I fail to see what fact I am not accepting, the evidence is in those papers. Read them, and get back to us. Hey it’s not my ideology; I just accept science based on what it is. Like, gravity, evolution etc, the theories behind them are the best level of understanding available (refer to my previous post for explanation of theory), and thus I accept them for that they are and will accept any science that can modify and improve any theory.
I do think you'll understand that once you accept the science that shows an increase in greenhouse gases, and that its origin is mainly from human activities, that to change it requires no experimentation at all. Its not lack of scientific rigor. Really, consider if humans are increasing the greenhouse gases, then human activities can clearly be changed. That is why no experimentation is needed; it’s a logical thought process that indicates you are either not thinking, intentionally being obtuse, or are simply not very bright. You pick. I only sneer at your ignorance of science, some people post misguided nonsense like volcano’s relase more CO2 than humans…but considering the posts you make I think you should ask for a refund on your education
Well done
You are a very patient person, Carl. I am glad to hear that you teach.
Look up "experiment" in the dictionary
First, the act of controlled measurements in testing an hypothesis is an experiment. Want to know some of the ways that carbon dioxide concentrations are measured? LOOK IT UP. The experiments are easy and repeatable. We know that measurements of carbon isotopes show the source of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Want to know how those controlled measurements are made? LOOK IT UP. Now, since numerous experiments have shown that burning organic materials produces increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and since those same experiments show that when you stop burning organic material, organic carbon is not converted to CO2, then Carl is relying on science not ideology.
I recommended above that you ask a precise question. Of which component that I've written above are you most skeptical? Ask a precise question and you might get an answer.
Ever taken a science class?
Thanks for the reply; we are of the same mind though I did provide some useful references below. As for the actual ease of measurements, CO2 can be measured with an Infrared Gas Analyzer; it takes about 1 min to calibrate and 30 seconds to take a measurement no more. As for carbon ratios, my thoughts are a mass spec will get it done, but not everyone carries one of those around in their pockets. Enjoy Rob, and I can tell you've never taken a botany class; students get to play with the IRGA's in second year making CO2 measurements. To bad for you, yes indeed, that easy......a second year undergrad can do it.....I tend think even a trained animal could take CO2 measurements over time. No insults intended to any current undergrads.
bait and switch
Look at Carl's #2 and how it follows #1. Now notice that #1 referred to GHGs increasing in the atmosphere. It requires different experiments to demonstrate that humans are responsible for increases in GHGs than is does to demonstrate that humans are responsible for global warming. If you ask precise questions you are more likely to get adequate answers.
Honored
I'll also quote a small snipit from wikipedia's entry from a man who knows entirely more than me.
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".
Hoist on your own petard
"On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".
Bingo.
And that is precisely where the theory of anthropogenic global warming falls apart. Repeatedly.
You've changed your mind?
You used to think that something that wasn't proven couldn't be disproved. Did you look up "disprove" in the dictionary like I suggested? Great. Now please post the evidence that the theory of AGW falls apart. Seriously. You say it falls apart repeatedly, so this shouldn't be hard. Explain this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/bbc-contrarian-top-10/
Journalists aren't our leaders
The very idea that journalists are supposed to show leadership is disgusting. They are supposed to report facts not lead movements. They are there to tell people what is being said and done and who is saying it or doing it. They are not there to give us their ideas or agendas or push specific policies.
A blind eye, for political reasons, all right
Funny, how none of the worshippers in the House of Global Warming ever acknowledge that solar activity has been quite excessive for some time. Well over a decade, in fact.
So, keep spreading the "humans did it!" lies of global warming. But the truth is, the SUN is mostly responsible for the state of the climate. Blame the SUV all you like - and I'm not defending them, mind you - but the fact is that even if every anti-capitalist item in the global socialist agenda were enacted tomorrow, it wouldn't change anything. Human activity simply isn't the true culprit here. It's like saying that a person on fire needs to be concerned about a sniffles. We could be cleaner and greener as a society and as a species, but that's not going to fix anything, because we aren't the ones "breaking" it.
No, the true culprit is that big hot yellow thing in the sky. But saying that serves nobody's political or socio-economic agenda, so instead we have to put up with all this "humans did it!" garbage.
To reapeat: the S.U.N. - not the S.U.V. - is the cause of the climate change. All the eco-wankers need to go do some unbiased research.
bias
People who write things like "ecowankers" and "anti-capitalism" when discussing science should not lecture anyone on bias. If the discussion was regarding policy, then those phrases would be slightly less objectionable. But John, let's get away from those phrases entirely -- show us your source of unbiased research.
I am always amazed that
I am always amazed that people continue to think that climate scientists would NOT have considered, first and foremost, what impact solar variability and orbit etc would have on climate change. The whole point of the growing concern and focus on man-made GHG emissions is that when taken together, natural forces (solar, orbital, volcanic, forest fires -- whatever) are insufficient to explain the current rapid & accelerating rise in GHGs or the recent rise in temperature. They've considered it. They've moved on. WE ARE PAST THAT NOW. If there was any doubt, it has been laid to rest by a conclusive paper published (peer reviewed) earlier this year. It analysed recent solar activity and demonstrated that, as VJ & Tom have pointed out, solar activity has been stable for 60 years.
It isn't an "anti-capitalist, global socialist" cabal that has been doing the science.
Frankly, I'm amazed that some of the keener capitalists/multi-nationals aren't all over this announcing huge R&D initiatives to develop alternative clean power sources so they can clean up in the new market for ways to keep muscle cars on the road.
NOT the sun.
Solar activity has been at a steady level for the last 60 years and has had nothing to do with the global temperature increase since 1975.
This is from the "Usoskin 2005" studies by a group of scientists from Finland and Germany.
The Max Planck Institute has found that irradience has been steady since 1950.
Direct satellite measurements have found no rising trend since 1978.
We, the human species, are most definitely "breaking" it.
All the information is out there proving it and it's not coming from "eco-wankers" as you so quaintly put it.
In fact the scientists say
In fact the scientists say that recent solar activity has not been excessive and thus cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
Where is your scientific evidence that it has been excessive?
Hmm...my psychic powers, and
Hmm...my psychic powers, and providing me a strong feeling, a vision if you will....his source is a blog or media report that isnt based on any science at all but some garbage put out by a think tank.....just the feeling I have.
Now that I believe. :) But
Now that I believe. :) But I like the phrase Doonesbury came up with: "belief tanks"
Fascinating study
Thanks for pointing this out, Richard. I've noticed America's leading Sunday talk show host has a remarkable record of avoiding the topic of global warming ...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/11/125730/98
It has not been conclusively
It has not been conclusively proven that some people will not be swayed by the facts. Neither has it been conclusively proven that statements which adopt the form of reason are therefor reasonable.
Woah, that's deep, dude!
"It has not been conclusively proven that some people will not be swayed by the facts."
So if the "facts" don't happen to fully support your claims, you blame the people who don't accept your argument. Nice.
Maybe you need some better facts?
Tedious
"Facts?! Pfft. You can prove almost anything with facts that's even remotely true." -- Homer Simpson.
Rob, why don't you do the reading regarding the philosophy of science that I've recommended to you so many times before? Just go to wikipedia or some source you think is credible. And to stop making false claims such as it being impossible to disprove something that was never proven in the first place, please do others the favour of consulting a dictionary (hint: look up "disprove").
What wasn't said
I found some aspects of this article to be...disturbing - but even more disturbing was what you implied but didn't explicitly state.
I'm a big fan of Dr Suzuki, and I've been living a minimalist lifestyle for over 30 years. I'm a lifelong bicycle commuter who has never driven a gas-powered vehicle or purchased even a litre of gasoline. I have always believed that human-generated air pollution constitutes a serious threat to our global ecosystem.
However...there are explicit and implicit concepts in your article, and the linked studies, that I can't accept and that I find more than a little disturbing.
Both you and Boykoff appear to be of the opinion that traditional journalistic norms and values of "balanced" reporting ought to be dispensed with when the news involves pronouncements by "the managerial scientific community". In fact, you both seem to be blaming adherence to standards of balanced reporting for the failure of the American government to take decisive action on global warming. Boykoff is quite explicit about this:
"In the end,adherence to the norm of balanced reporting leads to informationally biased coverage of global warming. This bias,hidden behind the veil of journalistic balance, creates both discursive and real political space for the US government to shirk responsibility and delay action regarding global warming".
This implies that journalists are to blame for global warming - which is witch-hunting behaviour and should not be acceptable to any Real Progressive.
It is furthermore implied that journalists are somehow interfering with a "discourse" between "the managerial scientific community" and the public, and that this interference itself is a threat to planetary wellbeing. You seem to be saying that journalists ought to just print/broadcast whatever these managerial scientists tell them to print or broadcast - in fact you imply this to be there social duty. Why bother having journalists at all, if that is the case? "Managerial scientists" could simply fax their pronouncements to media outlets and have them published verbatim without comment. Right?
Why not really cut to the chase and dispense with the "discourse with the public" altogether? It's hard to imagine a threat greater than ecological collapse and eventual extinction - this situation is so dire that even elected "decision-makers" shouldn't be allowed to slow down our response time by being a part of the process. We should just appoint the IPCC as a temporary world government and have them direct all public policy themselves. Right?
Wrong. Scientists are a critically important social asset, but specialists in any area are inherently tunnel-visioned by their speciality. Cancer researchers naturally see cancer prevention as society's most urgent priority, police officers naturally see law enforcement as society's most urgent priority, virologists naturally see communicable disease eradication as society's most urgent priority, and so on.
Balanced perspectives are essential to preventing fanaticism and social hysteria, and scientists working in any area of speciality may be too close to the subject matter to acheive that kind of objectivity. That's why journalistic norms and values should not be abandoned and elected decision-makers should not be replaced by councils of technocrats.
Strange statement...
...coming from an avowed fan of Dr Suzuki.
Dr Suzuki has many times openly declared that the debate is over, climate change is real, we are the cause of it, and it's time to solve the problem.
Journalists have been a part of the problem by trying present balanced reporting where there is no balance. Political correctness gone very wrong in my opinion. This "balanced reporting" has merely given the very small number of professional "deniers" the ability to sow doubt and confusion.
Journalists are no more to blame for global warming than you or I, but they are guilty of failing in their social duty to inform us of the dangers that will affect us, and our planet's well being. Mind you...not all of them are guilty of this "sin" and as Max Boykoff points out, things have improved.
They should print/broadcast releases from the scientists if they are correct and they should be in terms that the public can understand.
And yes...our elected "decision-makers" shouldn't be allowed to slow down our response time to climate change.
That's what journalists are best at...revealing the truth and if need be, embarass our leaders into positve action!
The IPCC was created, with the aid of world governments, to eliminate the tunnel-vision you seem so concerned about. All different fields of expertise are involved to present as broad a picture as possible of the rate and extent of climate change.
You're right..."journalistic norms and values should not be abandoned" and it's time they return, before the situation becomes so dire that our elected decision-makers, as inept as some of them are... have to be replaced by those councils of technocrats just to save our butts!
do people even realize that
do people even realize that there is NO PROOF that humans are the cause of global warming? There is not scientific evidence to back this, and a recent paper by the International climate change group of the UN, only 5 scientists (none with very good credentials) backed the part of the paper that said humans were the main cause.
The reason the US isn't broadcasting it as much is nobody actually knows whats going on, and have no idea what will happen in 50 years except for a few speculations.
Learn the facts
proof
Spook is right under some conditions... there is no proof... but only if we ignore physics, chemistry, atmospheric measurements, experiments, models (yes, including computer models, the kind the Friends of NRSP fear), and anything else that requires a bit of study. If we take the approach of examples like Ball, who claimed that CFC molecules are too heavy to move up into the atmosphere, then we wouldn't need proof. Working the crowd would be enough.
IPCC WG1 The Physical Basis
IPCC WG1 The Physical Basis For Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Gabriele C. Hegerl (USA, Germany), Francis W. Zwiers (Canada)
Lead Authors:
Pascale Braconnot (France), Nathan P. Gillett (UK), Yong Luo (China), Jose A. Marengo Orsini (Brazil, Peru), Neville Nicholls (Australia), Joyce E. Penner (USA), Peter A. Stott (UK)
Contributing Authors:
M. Allen (UK), C. Ammann (USA), N. Andronova (USA), R.A. Betts (UK), A. Clement (USA), W.D. Collins (USA), S. Crooks (UK), T.L. Delworth (USA), C. Forest (USA), P. Forster (UK), H. Goosse (Belgium), J.M. Gregory (UK), D. Harvey (Canada), G.S. Jones (UK), F. Joos (Switzerland), J. Kenyon (USA), J. Kettleborough (UK), V. Kharin (Canada), R. Knutti (Switzerland), F.H. Lambert (UK), M. Lavine (USA), T.C.K. Lee (Canada), D. Levinson (USA), V. Masson-Delmotte (France), T. Nozawa (Japan), B. Otto-Bliesner (USA), D. Pierce (USA), S. Power (Australia), D. Rind (USA), L. Rotstayn (Australia), B. D. Santer (USA), C. Senior (UK), D. Sexton (UK), S. Stark (UK), D.A. Stone (UK), S. Tett (UK), P. Thorne (UK), R. van Dorland (The Netherlands), M. Wang (USA), B. Wielicki (USA), T. Wong (USA), L. Xu (USA, China), X. Zhang (Canada), E. Zorita (Germany, Spain)
Review Editors: David J. Karoly (USA, Australia), Laban Ogallo (Kenya), Serge Planton (France)
From Setion 9.7
The widespread change detected in temperature observations
of the surface (Sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3), free atmosphere (Section 9.4.4) and ocean (Section 9.5.1), together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system (Section 9.5), strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised
in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6).
The evidence from surface temperature observations is
strong: The observed warming is highly significant relative to estimates of internal climate variability which, while obtained from models, are consistent with estimates obtained from both instrumental data and palaeoclimate reconstructions. It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that recent global warming is due to internal variability alone
So, as per my own note, thats a serious lists of hacks, PR men, and shills on that list I just provided, no real researchers at all.....be real seriously
Somebody...
...is really feeding you a line!
A statement like yours proves that you could not possibly done any reading of your own!
What you have written is
What you have written is nonsense. Visit some of the links here and learn what the science really says.
House of Cards
The whole paper is based on the assumption that someone actually "knows" for sure without a doubt about the weather.
Poppycock, men, very learned men, armed with the most powerful computers made can't predict where a hurricane will go in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet somehow these other men are supposedly able to predict the climate ten, twenty and a hundred years out.
What's left of the British empire is locked in a morass of political correctness, if "we" believe it to be so then the "They" must be forced to believe it as well or "They" must be evil. Folks that isn't how it works. There are always two sides to every story. Sticking your head in the sand will only get you kicked in the arse.
you are mistaking weather
you are mistaking weather for climate. Weather is a far far more granular subject than climate, while climate is an observation of long green weather trends. With a misaprensions as fundamental as this it is not surprising you jump to such inaccurate conclusions.
Skepticalscience.com...
...explains it really well.
Skeptic Argument #34.
You said, "What's left of
You said, "What's left of the British empire is locked in a morass of political correctness, if "we" believe it to be so then the "They" must be forced to believe it as well or "They" must be evil. Folks that isn't how it works. There are always two sides to every story. Sticking your head in the sand will only get you kicked in the arse."
Makes sense to me...
And the two sides to this
And the two sides to this one are:
1) The weight of scientific evidence shows that global warming is occurring more quickly than is natural as a result of human activities producing greenhouse gases.
2) Denialists have failed to provide scientific evidence that disproves 1).
Pretzel Logic
"1) The weight of scientific evidence shows that global warming is occurring more quickly than is natural as a result of human activities producing greenhouse gases."
So tell us -- how quickly should the Earth be warming naturally?
Unless you know of an identical Earth, but without the human activity, to compare with, I'd guess you have no idea.
"2) Denialists have failed to provide scientific evidence that disproves 1)."
Now tell us -- when was 1) ever proven to begin with? Since 1) has never been proven, then that makes it impossible to ever disprove.
Compare the models that show
Compare the models that show what warming would be like WITHOUT human burning of fossil fuels with those that show what it is ACTUALLY DOING. Simple.
And BTW, you still haven't answered my question: your full name & coordinates, please?
"Simple" -- Yes, that pretty much sums it up.
"Compare the models that show what warming would be like WITHOUT human burning of fossil fuels with those that show what it is ACTUALLY DOING. Simple."
Well, that would be great, but unfortunately the Earth we inhabit isn't a model. So, coming right back to the point, you still have no proven the claim.
"And BTW, you still haven't answered my question: your full name & coordinates, please?"
Why are you stalking me? This is very weird and creepy behaviour. Just how many cats do you own?
Well, you claimed I was a
Well, you claimed I was a real estate agent in Idaho. I've been open about who I am. Am I not allowed to question your identity? Is there some reason you don't want anyone to know who you are?
Get Help Now, Fern Mackenzie
"Well, you claimed I was a real estate agent in Idaho. I've been open about who I am."
No you haven't:
http://sothebyshomes.com/sunvalley/agents/Fern.Mackenzie
Who knows why you keep lying about it? But that seems to be a symptom of your deranged state of mind.
"Is there some reason you don't want anyone to know who you are?"
Yes there is. To avoid becoming victimized by potentially dangerous mentally-ill people like you.
It just occurred to me
you owe the lady at http://sothebyshomes.com/sunvalley/agents an apology. If you want to spit vitriol at someone, Rob, Know Your Enemy. Spit it at me. I for one apologize to this other Fern Mackenzie. You didn't ask to be dragged into this. I don't think it's fair for you, Rob, to go on characterizing this person as deranged. I don't care that you think that I am deranged. I've been called worse by better. But leave the poor lady in Idaho out of it.
Just ignore him.
He doesn't care one way or the other about climate change.
All he's interested in is antagonizing everybody.
Kind of a weird way of getting attention...even if it's negative in nature.
You can't win an argument with a drunk.
FEMACK Fails To Resist Urge. Again.
FEMACK swore up and down on Sunday, November 11, 2007 at 15:59 --
"I've been having my own little battle with Rob over the last few days, and I have come to the conclusion that he should be ignored wherever he pops up. Resist the urge, folks. Let him blether [sic] on. All that happens when we take the bait is that he gets air time.
http://www.desmogblog.com/anatomy-of-a-dupe-the-john-locke-foundation#comment
Exactly as predicted. You couldn't even control yourself for 26 hours.
Remember:
"Resist the urge, folks"!
Nasty!
Rob, you're acting like a cornered rat.
Enough already
You haven't bothered to check to see whether I might in fact be someone other than this real estate agent, even although I gave you the URL to my listing at the Library & Archives of Canada. You keep telling me that there might be another Rob (not you) running a blog in Bismarck ND who posted an identical comment at sayanythingblog & desmogblog as "Rob" on the same day, but you won't accept that there might be another Fern Mackenzie outside of Idaho. Enough time has been wasted on this as it is. You are a gadfly, Rob. Irritating, but ultimately pointless.
I think Rob should be
I think Rob should be banned.
Gee, VJ ...
... and here I thought you were going to enlighten us as to where we could find this part of the IPCC report which you claim says AGW has been conclusively proven?
Or maybe you can't find it, either?
Maybe you should stop
Maybe you should stop accusing people of being mentally ill or on drugs simply because they are smarter than you;.
So, VJ ...
Have you found that part you said was in the IPCC report which you claim provides conclusive proof of AGW?
We're all still waiting.