Taboos and the reporting od science

oops! title should say 'of' not od

Hereis the Royal Astronomical Society'sown press release about Svensmark's paper: www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive

I think James Lovelock has been saying much more balanced things about global warming for quite a while now, he certainly wasn't alarmist when my father heard him lecture last year.

Scientific reporting in the popular press is generally of pretty poor quality, I guess because being alarmist sells more papers than a reasoned and balanced discussion.

fp won't let me access it!

Found both articles interesting ..including Lawernece's take on how journalists view scientists!

Scientists are human ...with all the character faults of any other group!!
Just think of the pride that held back the research into the 'Double helix'

Bags I found the second article far more interesting than the first which seemed a bit of a rant. Where, for instance, is the writer's evidence that:
'...one eye-opener is the advance of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic- both are now at average levels....'
when David Attenborough, amongst others, actually showed us the opposite.

Like all things based on data ogm ...it's how you use it that counts!

Jacey or abuse it!

OGM, the evidence for the sea ice extent is in the following places all collected together for ease of reference (but with live links to the originals) at the link right at the bottom.

1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (NOAA)
2. National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC)
3. The Danish Meteorological Institute
4. NANSEN Arctic ROOS
5. Cyrosphere Today – Arctic .Climate Research, Univ Illinois
6. Naval Research Laboratory
7. EC/Canadian Ice Service Map

sea ice reeference pages

Sad though it may make you, I think these guys know more about polar ice than David Attenborough. He's a lovely man and has made amazing programmes, but he hasn't got all his facts right about sea ice or climate change.

butty, see if this link works: Lawrence Solomon article

Bags... PHEW!
Only came on for a quick break and look what I find!!!!! Will take time to look at all your references later, thanks.
Actually what makes me SAD (in both senses of the word) is that whatever we think the cause may be, the weather is changing. Without any real scientific evidence that I can quote to back it, I have always thought that global warming would lead to more extremes. I suppose we are witnessing that in our own weather patterns.

No, we are not experiencing more weather extremes. If you are interested, and if you give me a bit of time, I can point you to records which prove that too. Global warming/climate change alarmism is simply that – alarmism. In 'street' parlance: Climate changes. Get over it!

Or adapt, of course, as we (and all other life on the planet) always have.

Well said, Bags. I'm tired of global warming fanaticism.

So where is carboncareful at this juncture? (Hope you're OK, cc)

Bags again a quick peek and I let myself get involved again!
I looked up your references.
I then 'Googled' WATTS UP to discover (Wikipedia) that:
'Anthony Watts reports on anthropogenic global warming-related issues from a skeptical standpoint...'
On reading further, the section titled 'Reception' made interesting reading.
Sorry I am not computer-literate enough to provide a link, but you could easily find it.
You and I must agree to differ as you will quote evidence from 'Skeptic sources' and I will continue to believe IPCC published reports.
With apologies to Anagram for prolonging the 'debate'.
P.S. Our local news reported on the 'extreme' weather we are experiencing here in the Southwest at the moment.

Oh dear, there goes my early night!

Sure, ogm. You'll believe what you want to believe. I just provided the facts that you asked for which, perhaps you didn't notice, did not originate with Anthony Watts. He has just collected the information together for interested people. The information on his sea ice reference page is from the sources I quoted. You don't have to trust them either, but one wonders why not.

So since when has a bit of cold, wind and rain in April been extreme? It may not be the weather people want, but it's normal weather for all that. The fact that some newsreader or weather reader calls it extreme doesn't mean a thing.

Unless you want it to .

Enjoy your fear.

But the get back to the original question (well remark), doesn't it strike you as remotely interesting that one of the fathers of the global warming scare, James Lovelock (yes, I have read his book, ^The Revenge of Gaia^; I didn,t think he was being alarmist at the time either), has said that he was being alarmist about global warming? Doesn't that make you stop and think that maybe, just maybe, a few others might have exaggerated too? After all, he's not the first Warmist to move away from the (ahem) extreme predictions.

PS (then I'll shut up, honest!) The Met Office uses the term 'severe', not extreme. There's a difference. Severe doesn't imply anything out of the ordinary even if it is unwelcome.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
4 replies to my latest post!

Dear Bags I acknowledge and respect your right to hold the opinions you do. I merely want to suggest that there are usually two sides to an argument/debate.

It was late last night and I did use extreme (I added the inverted commas) when I should have used severe and boy, it has been severe with rainfall for April being the most since records began, apparently, here in the SW.

May I refute a few pre-conceptions you may have about me:

I had noticed that Anthony Watts reports on global warming issues ( see above post).
I do not fear climate change/global warming, concern does not equate to fear.
I enjoy looking at the many and varied reports with their accompanying statistics (for both sides of the debate) and thank you for drawing my attention to 'WATTS UP'. Later I shall Google the latest IPCC report, in the interests of balance.
Finally, I totally agree, Climate changes.

I think there's one thing you have missed though, ogm, which is that I look at both sides too. I was as concerned about climate change as you, possibly more so, a few years ago. Then I started to read some stuff from the other side......

This is said in the kindest way, and with a twinkle in my eye and warmth in my heart towards you, but why is it that you think I protest too much? All I do is post some stuff that interests me and then respond to following posts. There may be several posts from me instead of one because I'm too "post button happy" and then think of something else. I do tend to think in jerks and since I'm not writing an essay, I post in jerks too. Attacking my posting style is just a distraction technique. If I'm posting more than you or someone else on this subject, so what? In fact I haven't posted anything on the subject for quite a long time but felt that the new Svensmark paper was important and different. Likewise, James Lovelock's recent statements are highly significant. To me.

You could, after all, always ignore my posts .

Writing posts, one has to be so careful not to convey anything which may be misinterpreted.
I should have included a after my opening comment, I was alluding to your 4 replies and not anything that had been said before, in that post.
I too say this in the kindest way but I do think you use emotive language sometimes 'attacking my posting style' seems a bit strong and certainly wasn't my intention.
I'm sure you read widely, and I do enjoy reading the interesting articles
to which to draw people's attention.
I'm far too nosey to ignore your posts!

You're right. I chose the word 'attacked' carefully. I've felt it a few times. Now that I know sharpness is not intended, I'll be able to let it pass when I feel the 'ball' has been left behind in the interest of catching the man.