Media Matters put out a video this past week with clips of all the recent FOX News mentions of a global warming name conspiracy. The Fox 'conspiracy' is that 'liberals' stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change. Little did they realize, apparently, that the man responsible for the partisan polarization over the terminology of climate change vs. global warming is none other than FOX News contributor Frank Luntz...
read moreDon’t “cry wolf” on climate-change risks, scientists say
Don’t “cry wolf” on climate-change risks, scientists say
Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, told a conference in Oxford some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.
Collier, former president of the society, is concerned the serious message about the risks posed by global warming could be undermined by making premature claims. This view is shared by Hardaker, the society's chief executive.
"We have to stick to what the science is telling us,” Hardaker said. “I don't think making that sound more sensational, or more sexy, because it gets us more newspaper columns, is the right thing for us to be doing.
"We have to let the science argument win out."
- Bill Miller's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Climate experts hit back
"The Times also
Angus Reid
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Global Warming Real, Worrying for Canadians
March 22, 2007
Most Canadian adults believe climate change is a reality, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 77 per cent of respondents are convinced that global warming is happening, 21 per cent think it may be occurring, and only two per cent flatly reject it. In addition, 69 per cent of respondents think the science behind climate change estimates is real, while 12 per cent deem it as "junk" and 19 per cent are not sure...
The "may be" category of about 21% is fair enough. The discussion and debate of evidence has probably been a positive thing, although the shrillness of the really uninformed shills (who mouth old slogans and only think they are debating evidence) has spoiled the process a bit, but obviously not made much headway. The "junk science" question is politicized so not as meaningful.
quote: ..."junk science" is the term that corporate defenders apply to any research, no matter how rigorous, that justifies regulations to protect the environment and public health. The opposing term, "sound science", is used in reference to any research, no matter how flawed, that can be used to challenge, defeat, or reverse environmental and public health protections.
- Trust Us, We're Experts!
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
Jeremy P. Tarcher / Putnam Publisher, 2001, paper (Amazon)