The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change

[n2doc]

The Conversation wraps up Clearing up the Climate Debate with a statement from our authors: the debate is over. Let’s get on with it.

Over the past two weeks The Conservation has highlighted the consensus of experts that climate change caused by humans is both real and poses a serious risk for the future.

We have also revealed the deep flaws in the conduct of so-called climate “sceptics” who largely operate outside the scientific context.

...

Some people will be understandably sceptical about that last statement. But when they read up on the science, and have their questions answered by climate scientists, they come around.

These people are true sceptics, and a degree of scepticism is healthy.

Other people will disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and will challenge the science on internet blogs and opinion pieces in the media, but no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong, they will never change their opinions.

These people are deniers.

more
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

[John Paul Jones]

1. "the debate is over"

Skepticism is the order of the day when one side attempts to silence the voice of their opponents.

[iemitsu]

2. this article points out the difference

between skepticism (which is healthy) and denial (which is not healthy). it is not the voice of the skeptics that the article is trying to close down.

[kristopher]

3. Kick and Rec.

[Nederland]

4. Yet another article that ignores the real debate

The real debate is not about whether or not AGW is real or not, but what's its magnitude is. That is where the heart of the debate lies, and it is a subject that every global warming alarmist will avoid at all costs. They avoid it because the data does not support their contention that global warming will be catastrophic.

[kristopher]

5. Actually no it isn't; not in the sense you are trying to sell it.

As the OP stated:
Some people will be understandably sceptical about that last statement. But when they read up on the science, and have their questions answered by climate scientists, they come around. These people are true sceptics, and a degree of scepticism is healthy.

Other people will disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and will challenge the science on internet blogs and opinion pieces in the media, but no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong, they will never change their opinions.

These people are deniers."

That is describing you.

[The Croquist]

6. Watch it Nederland

You have incurred the wrath of kristopher. The all wise and benevolent expert on all things worth knowing. Be scared. Be very scared...

I mean it seems like a reasonable article. I went back to the first part. It wasn't until the 7th paragraph where it insulted those that didn't agree with them.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

[Nederland]

9. Kristopher is dogmatic on this subject

I've discussed this with him a couple times in the past and he simply does not understand. For some reason he cannot grasp the fact that there are more than two positions on global warming. That type of dualism is typical of debates that have acquired a religious rather than scientific tone. From the point of view of the media, it also simplifies the discussion, making it easier to write about.

[The Croquist]

10. It's also easier to be rude on the internet then in person

There are things that people will say on-line that they would never consider saying in person. For some reason being rude obnoxious is considered more acceptable on the internet. I am certainly guilty of it but kristopher seems to take it to a higher level. It's not just global warming either.

[kristopher]

12. There is nothing more rude than deliberately attempting to deceive.

I have no tolerance for liars in person or on the internet.

Perhaps you need to look to your own behavior.

[The Croquist]

14. Perhaps you should take your own advise

A few posts in the last few days:

NASA’s James Hansen Says Nuclear Is Safer Than Fossil

In response to wtmusic:
I've seen desperate blather before, and your post is what it looked like.

In response to wtmusic:
That is internet trash-talk trying to divert from the excellent points made by intaglio in post 25.
You use garbage to obstruct more discussion on this forum than almost any other poster.

Georgia Power to buy up to 50 MW of solar by 2015

In response to FBaggins:
What is the point you are trying to make Rod?
You first pretend that a political circumstance is the same as a real technical issue, now you are just babbling nonsense.
What is your point - clearly and concisely?

In response to FBaggins:
Those numbers are "the writing on the wall" for nuclear's non-investors
I jumbled a couple of numbers in my head while typing, sue me. It doesn't change the fundamentals a bit.

Schools of fish inspire wind farms with 10x as much power output per unit area

In response to txlibdem:
That is woo woo nonsense on its face

I didn't include the insults you sent to me on any post or to Nederland on this one.

[kristopher]

17. I already said I have no tolerance for those who deliberately spread false information.

[The Croquist]

19. I'm waiting for you to say "wow I can be obnoxious"!

I guess you think that all those people must be spreading "false information".

[n2doc]

7. You are wrong.

If you don't understand what a 3-5oC global temperature change will do, re-read the literature. If you still refuse to understand the implications, then you are part of the group who will have the blood of billions on their hands.

[Nederland]

8. You clearly didn't read my post

I know what a 3-5oC global temperature change will do. What I am challenging is whether we will see a 3-5oC increase. More specifically, what I am challenging is the claim that there is scientific consensus on the magnitude of the warming we can expect over the next 100 years. There is no such consensus, because computer models have not been shown to be particularly accurate. Sure computer models are great at hindcasting ("predicting" what the 20th century will look like), but any honest scientist will tell you that proves nothing. The real question is whether or not you can predict the future accurately, and so far the results on that show the models predicting larger increases than observed.

[kristopher]

11. You are a denier.

As I said the way you portray the legitimate discussion about the uncertainty related to degree of warming is FALSE.

There is no discussion between "we're screwed" and "aw, it isn't going to be so bad" as you would have people believe.

The reality is that the discussion covering uncertainty on degreee of warming is between "we're screwed" and "we're really, really screwed".

Your attempt to falsify what the discussion is about makes you a denier.

[Nederland]

20. Since when did you become Omniscient?

There is no discussion between "we're screwed" and "aw, it isn't going to be so bad" as you would have people believe.

Yes there is, you simply are not aware of it taking place. Believe it or not Kristopher, there are conversations going on in the world that you are not aware of.

[guardian]

13. The doomer approach to discussion

You obviously need to get your mind right.

[Barrett808]

15. Desdemona loves the smell of delusional hope in the morning:

A child's garden of climate-change stories

[Barrett808]

16. Both "warmists" and "skeptics" miss the larger point:

It's neither the final equilibrium temperature nor the immense excursion in the global carbon cycle that dooms us; rather, the gigantic perturbations in multiple elemental cycles and their exceedingly high flux rates will do us in. In addition to the vast release of previously sequestered carbon (~8 gigatons/year, about equal to a rift volcanism event each year), humans are liberating gigatons of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds into the environment, at rates far in excess of any in Earth's history.

For example, here's a recent estimate of how far humans have perturbed the phosphorus cycle:

Planetary boundaries and current status of the phosphorus (P) cycle. (A) Planetary boundary and current status for P input to freshwaters from terrestrial ecosystems, Tg y–1. (B) Planetary boundary and current status for P input to terrestrial soils, Tg y–1. (C) Planetary boundary and current status for P mass in terrestrial soils, Tg. In each bar plot, white bars are results if P flow to the sea is 9 Tg y–1, gray bars are results if P flow to the sea is 22 Tg y–1, and black bars are results if P flow to the sea is 32 Tg y–1. For each rate of P flow to the sea, the first bar is the planetary boundary for the low target of 24 mg m–3, the second bar is the planetary boundary for the high target of 160 mg m–3, and the third bar is the current status. Graph of the Day: Planetary Boundaries and Status of the Phosphorus Cycle, 2010

No biosphere in Earth's history has been subjected to such immense fluxes, and there's no reason to expect that what remains of our biosphere will respond favorably.

[kristopher]

18. +1

[pscot]

21. +2

Sustainable human life, and that of most other creatures as well, depends on a stable climate. Our comfort zone, and that of the plants and animals we depend on, is small. We've lived in that zone, despite successive ice-age cycles, for several million years, and now we are pissing it away. Our resident "warmists and skeptics" profess unconcern, in spite of the tsunami of data showing bad trouble ahead. Some might see that as a failure of imagination, but it's hard to see around a corner. People look around them and see a comforting reality; home and family, the job, vacation plans, worry about the 401k. Sure we have problems, but they will eventually be addressed, as they always have been. Yeah, the weather has been weird, but it goes in cycles. Remember the big blow of '63? The idea that something is going to brush all this away is hard to grasp. And that hard-headed practicality has carried the day. Nothing is being done to halt, or even slow the climate juggernaut, except at the margins. Instead we argue, we temporize and we roll merrily along, while atmospheric carbon approaches levels not seen in 600 million years, species that humans have grown up with dwindle and disappear, glaciers and polar ice vanish, vast tracts of land become desert and the oceans atrophy. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time feeling complacent in the face of all this. If anyone has something reassuring to say, now would be a good time.

[Nederland]

22. Our comfort zone is small?

Really? The average temperature difference between San Diego, CA and Anchorage, AK is more than 40C, and yet life exists in both places...

[Barrett808]

23. Yes; much smaller perturbations in the carbon cycle have caused mass extinctions

Also: There's not much agriculture in Anchorage. And there won't be much in California, once we've drained the aquifers dry.

[Nederland]

24. Very different situation

Those extinctions occurred when temperatures rose 8 degrees--a far larger increase then the 2.2 degree increase models are predicting. As for draining the aquifers dry, that is the result of poor water management and over development, not climate change.

[Barrett808]

25. Indeed, our situation is much worse

We have vastly larger excursions in the biogeochemical cycles that support the biosphere, happening on an immensely faster time scale -- on the order of 1,000x larger carbon flux than the end-Permian eruption. Six degrees C and higher are easily achievable by the end of century, but it's not the final equilibrium temperature that will get us; it's the high rates of change in atmospheric and ocean chemistry.

[Nederland]

27. Six degrees is not remotely possible by the end of the century

The A1B scenario of IPCC models predicts a rise of 2.2 degrees, and even that rate of increase is much higher than observed temperatures. While I do not agree with those people that say the models have already been proved incorrect, I would say that if the current temperature trends of the last decade continue for another five years absolutely no one will be able to claim they are accurate. Given that there is good reason to question projections of a 2.2 degree rise, the idea of a 6 degree rise is laughable. The data simply does not support the idea.

[Barrett808]

29. Unfortunately, six degrees is quite achievable

Under both A1F1 and A2 (blue and red bars, far right):


Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (IPCC)

Six degrees is at the high end of envelope, but definitely a possible outcome.

My point is that the equilibrium temperature that pertains after the carbon excursion is not what will get us; it's the gigantic, unprecedented rates of change in carbon, phosphorus, and nitrogen compounds that are wrecking what's left of the biosphere. Nothing remotely like this has ever happened in Earth's history; to expect the biosphere to respond favorably is wishful thinking.

[Nederland]

31. Achievable if you ignore reality

I am well aware of the fact that there are computer model projections that end up with a six degree rise. The problem is that reality is not remotely conforming to those model projections, and reality kind of matters in science. Doesn't the fact that observed temperature increases are below the A1B1 projection line give you just a little pause? Just look at the starting (year 2000) slopes of the lines in your graph for the A1F1 and A2 scenarios. Those lines show temperatures increasing at around 0.6 to 0.8 degrees per a decade, but the over last ten years we've seen warming rates around 0.05 to 0.06 degrees per decade. How can you seriously claim that we might end up with a six degree rise over the next century when the observed warming over the last decade is a full order of magnitude lower than that? You can point to pretty little lines on a graph all you want, but at the end of the day those lines are going to be compared to what is happening in the real world, and right now that comparison doesn't look too good for even the lower end IPCC projections, let along the alarmist scenarios you are touting.

[Barrett808]

33. The models are doing quite well against the observations

See, for example, 2010 updates to model-data comparisons.

To reiterate my main point: It's not the final equilibrium surface temperature that matters, it's the gigantic, unprecedented excursions in the carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus fluxes that will get us.

[Nederland]

34. The A1B scenario is doing fairly well against reality

The model isn't doing quite as well as it looks from that post if you include the last 6 months (that post stops at 2010) because temperatures have plummeted recently. Regardless, I'll make a few points. Take a look at the plot comparing Hansen's predictions to observed temperatures. Note that the GISTemp trend is 0.19 per decade and HadCRUT3 trend is 0.18 per decade. I believe those numbers are twenty year trend numbers (hard to tell, and Gavin does not say) which is a little bit of a cherry pick on Gavin's part in that the twenty year trend is the warmest of the 5, 10, 20, 30 and 50 years trends. I won't make a big deal out of that because there may be a good reason to use twenty years, but also because it doesn't matter. The fact is that 0.19 and 0.18 are both smaller than 0.22, which is what the model says the trend should be. Is that a big difference? No. Could the next couple of years be warm enough to make reality fall back in line with the A1B scenario model? Yes. However, until that occurs I'm going to continue to claim what is factually obvious: actual temperatures are running under the A1B scenario model.

The confusion I have concerns what you think you have proven with that link. Even if we agree that the A1B scenario is running pretty close to reality, the A1B scenario only predicts 2.6 degrees of warming (I early said 2.2, which was a mistake) over the next century. The A1F1 and A2 scenarios that you were touting in the previous post are not even close to reality. Are you therefore conceding that a six degree rise is unlikely?

[Barrett808]

35. I'm saying that the final equilibrium temperature is not particularly important

It's the immense disturbances to Earth's biogeochemical cycles that the biosphere can't handle. The planet has never seen anything like this before:


Economist Stefan Karlsson: ‘Would global warming be so bad?’

Mass extinction events have occurred with much smaller perturbations.

[Nederland]

36. Simply not true

The planet has never seen anything like this before

That is simply not true:

[Barrett808]

37. Your graph makes my point

Compare the time scales -- your graph shows CO2 changes on the scale of hundreds of millions of years -- mine shows CO2 changing on the scale of decades.

Earth has never experienced carbon fluxes such as what humans are causing today, and your graph helpfully shows this.

[pscot]

26. Actually the difference in temp

between SanDiego amd Anchorage during December is only 23 degreesC and the difference during july is less; just 8 degreesC. SanDiego's highest monthly temp is 38C warmer than December in Anchorage, but so what. I've worked outside for extended periods at temps ranging from -10 F to +110. Again, so what. There are reasons civilization developed in temperate zones, and why no one lives north of the 70th parallel or in the heart of the Sahara. We have grown to our present unsustainable numbers during a benevolent weather regime. With regard to food production we have no margin for error, no comfort zone. We consume 2 trillion tons of grain each year. We can handle a bad year locally. A world wide bad crop year would put a hurt on millions. A bad decade would be like nothing in living memory.

[Nederland]

28. I stand corrected

The difference is not as high as I remembered. Regardless, the point is that life is much more adaptable than people realize. A rise of merely 2 to 3 degrees over the next century is simply not going to cause mass extinctions. Animal and plant populations will simply shift slightly northward, and in fact that has already started to happen.

I would also disagree with your assessment of global food production. The fact that many industrialized countries either pay their farmers to leave fields unplanted or create incentives for them to grow non-food crops like ethanol corn is not an indicator of a product that is suffering from supply shortages. There is more than enough farmland to feed everyone, the problem is that a good percentage of the people on the planet cannot afford to pay a price that farmers from rich countries are willing to accept. It is essentially an economic problem, not an environmental one.

[pscot]

30. One used to hear a similar argument

about peak oil: when the price goes up more oil will be produced. We don't hear that argument much anymore. Grain production has been flat the last few years, but we continue to add 100 million new mouths each year. The point I was trying to make in that last post, was that a healthy adult can in fact function in a pretty broad temperature band. But the temperature band for food crops is a lot narrower. If you plant a tomato in San Diego you can expect to be eating tomatoes in about a hundred days. Here on Puget Sound I haven't been able to ripen a tomato in the last 3 years. Last year drought took out most of Russia's whet crop. China, which depends on melt water from Himalayan glaciers, is experiencing similar problems. The Ganges and the Brahmaputra are at risk. The Colorado no longer runs to the sea and the Mississippi creates toxic dead zones in the Gulf. Canadian wheat acreage is down 10% this year because it just won't quit raining. It's easy to believe le bon temps will roll forever, but history tells us otherwise. After all, Joseph made his bones with Pharoah as a weatherman.

[Nederland]

32. Oil and food are not remotely the same

Oil is a finite resource that has a fixed quantity, food is a renewable resource that is grown. The limit on how much food we can grow is ironically dependent on how much oil we want to burn for agricultural use.