I think you might have what could be described as a meta-issue. Your analysis relies on studies by Anja Kollmuss, (decidedly not on the sceptic side), Ana Carvalho, ditto and obviously left wing) and Jacquelin Burgess of the University of East Anglia.

The above doesn’t mean that their conclusions are wrong but it does suggest they are coming at this from a particular ideological direction.

However, with the “Climategate” scandal still fresh in our minds, scientists and other special interest groups must also accept that they must be more transparent with their data

From what I remember the data they refused to share was not their data to give.

Useful piece.
My argument here is also relevant: there is, as you say, a bias toward the Right among climate-deniers, but it is not as simple as that:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/rupert-read/last-refuge-of-prejudice

Thanks for this. Matthew Nisbet has done a lot of work on communicating climate change – see his blog at http://bigthink.com/blogs/age-of-engagement/tags/2482
What’s interesting is the outright hostility from scientists at the idea of “framing” their message: http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/04/at_the_journal_science_a_nisbe.php

[troll deleted]

“In a 2002 study of European and US newspapers, Anja Kollmuss found that right-wing newspapers quote climate sceptics more frequently, are more likely to be inconsistent on the message of climate change and more hesitant to acknowledge a problem; whereas left-wing newspapers are more likely to accept the science, and support and suggest mitigation and adaptation strategies.”

So basically what they reported is that the right wing media did their job of actual reporting but left wing papers credulously reported the official party line regardless of the science?

Sounds about right.

“There were differences in the framing of climate change, with left-wing newspapers being significantly more likely to frame climate as cultural issue which would affect the general public. On the whole, climate change was being represented as a mostly scientific, political and ecological issue.”

And so you found that the left wing newspapers were utterly indifferent to the actual science behind climate change while, presumably, the right wing ones continued to report on the science?

Sounds about right too.

“However, right-wing newspapers were now significantly more likely to present sceptical arguments towards the science.”

And so, again, right wing papers did their job of actual reporting while left wing ones continued to act as Pravda-lite?

“Interestingly, it seemed that this was due to giving a platform to specific climate change sceptics (e.g. Richard Littlejohn in The Daily Mail, Christopher Booker and Simon Shaffer in The Telegraph), rather than a universal editorial mistrust of the science of climate change across all rightwing newspapers.”

So the right wing papers had an official pro-climate-change line but they continued to allow a lot of diversity in their papers, even on their comment pages, through the employment of skeptics? While the left ones imposed a uniform, mandatory party line on everyone?

Sounds about right.

“Nevertheless, this suggests that only the presence of one prolific journalist is needed to modify the perception of a newspaper’s stance on climate change.”

One prolific and brave journalist. And an editor willing to support variation from the official line.

“Journalists need to accept more responsibility when reporting on climate change findings, and perhaps guidelines need to be drawn up.”

Well of course we all know what the author means – damn those right wing papers for daring to put information before the public and let them make their own minds up. But I sort of agree. The left wing papers have let us all down badly. They have assumed their job is to berate us into total acceptance of the Party line and so they have suppressed perhaps the biggest story of recent times. They ought to be ashamed. Come to think of it, we have guidelines on reporting the controversy. They are called journalist ethics. Some left wing papers ought to acquaint themselves with them.

However, with the “Climategate” scandal still fresh in our minds, scientists and other special interest groups must also accept that they must be more transparent with their data

You missed out Amazongate, Glaciergate and all the other gates that have totally blown the AGW scam out of the water.

Journalists need to accept more responsibility when reporting on climate change findings

I can agree with that one though. Journalists are supposed to research a story rather than just rephrase bull fed to them by vested interests.

You missed out Amazongate, Glaciergate and all the other gates that have totally blown the AGW scam out of the water.

Rot. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis may or may not be true but it won’t be falsified by some media blowup.

Oh dear – I see the global warming deniers are back again, trying to muddy the waters.

So basically what they reported is that the right wing media did their job of actual reporting but left wing papers credulously reported the official party line regardless of the science?

No, what it means is that left-wing papers reflected the consensus amongst scientists, while right-wing papers deliberately promoted discredited sceptics such Delingpole and Christopher Booker.

You missed out Amazongate, Glaciergate and all the other gates that have totally blown the AGW scam out of the water.

You mean these ones? Yes – shows how much you people know about the science and the media reporting of it.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/09/should-uk-press-be-taken-seriously-on-climate-change/

and

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/17/more-media-misinformation-on-climate-change/

@BenSix

Rot. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis may or may not be true but it won’t be falsified by some media blowup.

If only there had been a media blowup. The coverage of all the CRU Climategate shenaginans and IPCC exagerations and inaccuracies by tthe MSM was pathetic. They all still follow the line fed them by that section of the climate research communities whose funds rely on continuing the deception that the science is settled.

I note that you classify AGW as an hypothesis so it obviously hasn’t totally convinced you. There’s hope yet!

@Sunny

You label me a “denier”. I prefer to be classed as a sceptic, but the more they go on about CAGW the less inclined I am to believe any of it. In particular the line that 2010 was the warmest year on record when a great deal of the northern hemisphere has been blanketed in snow on and off for two months or more and the summer in both hemispheres has been nothing to write home about.

“Journalists need to accept more responsibility when reporting on climate change findings, and perhaps guidelines need to be drawn up”

If you don’t find this chilling, you need to study your history more.

9. Sunny Hundal – “No, what it means is that left-wing papers reflected the consensus amongst scientists, while right-wing papers deliberately promoted discredited sceptics such Delingpole and Christopher Booker.”

Except that is not what has been reported here. The article says:

“Results indicated that at the beginning of the decade, surprisingly, anthropogenic climate change was mostly accepted across all newspapers as a phenomenon with potentially devastating consequences (only 20% of articles displayed sceptical arguments). …. Interestingly, it seemed that this was due to giving a platform to specific climate change sceptics (e.g. Richard Littlejohn in The Daily Mail, Christopher Booker and Simon Shaffer in The Telegraph), rather than a universal editorial mistrust of the science of climate change across all rightwing newspapers.”

So the editorial line of the right wing papers were as committed to the Party line as the left wing ones. But the right wing papers allowed a small number of skeptics to publish. There is no evidence of the right wing papers deliberately promoting anyone. Just diversity.

While on the other hand the left wing papers were, as you saying, pushing the Party line – what you call the consensus. That is, they were not reporting the issue, they are producing propaganda. In any issue, if there are two sides, we need to know about it. Even with Creationism. It is unethical for the newspapers to decide we don’t need to know.

And to call Booker or even that prat Dellingpole discredited is absurd.

This fight is over though. Climate change is a busted flush. Whether it is true or not, it has been discredited. It will no longer drive policy. It will take some massive proof before it is back in favour with governments.

@So Much For Subtlety

It will no longer drive policy. It will take some massive proof before it is back in favour with government

Ah if only it were so!

In any issue, if there are two sides, we need to know about it. Even with Creationism. It is unethical for the newspapers to decide we don’t need to know.

/sidetrack

You don’t believe there’s sometimes issues which are so clearly and urgently true that the alternative opinions aren’t worth amplifying? I don’t suspect climate change scepticism is morally and intellectually equivalent to these but would you say the same for, say, flat earthers? Holocaust revisionists? Perhaps one should, but I suspect – and I suspect you think – that there’s a qualitative standard, whatever it might be.

(Although, of course, there’s a difference between acknowledging a dissenting view – “some people think…” – and I agree that’s always good to do – and promoting it – “some people think…and here they are!”)

Thank you all for the comments, was expecting lots of people to disagree with me – for what it’s worth, will try and clarify some things…

@Falco: I’m using Kollmuss and C&B as illustrative examples because they are amongst the few researchers who compared newspapers explicitly by ideology – I referenced around 100 articles/books in my research, can send you the list if you so wish…

@SoMuchForSubtlety: sorry, but the argument goes both ways; newspapers shouldn’t go for knee-jerk scepticism nor tacit acceptance, but as sunny says, they need to reflect the scientific finsings as accurately as possible i.e. there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

All those accusing me of wanting to curtail free speech – I am TENTATIVELY proposing that GUIDELINES on reporting, not saying that sceptic arguments should never be presented in the media; I even say that scientists need to accept the fact that they need to be more transparent and report uncertanties in their research too, otherwise they will not be taken seriously. Scientific scepticism is not the same thing as outright denialism, and can be healthy if it’s constructive. I mean that scientific reporting guidelines should be available to journalists, especially those without scientific training, so they are aware of the perils of misreporting.

Shortening a 10,000 word dissertation into a 600 word article was quite a challenge, and there’s obviously lots I’ve left out – if you would like to engage in a constructive conversation about this with me, feel free to get in touch (@flame_me_up on Twitter)

Sean -

If only there had been a media blowup.

Not, perhaps, on a nationwide or international scale but in our little corner of the internet. See James Delingpole on any given day.

They all still follow the line fed them by that section of the climate research communities whose funds rely on continuing the deception that the science is settled.

The media should seek dissenting views – we’re agreed on that. On the other hand, the latter point is just ad hominem. All areas of study depend on their funding. Taken painkillers recently? Well, the scientists who manufactured them depend on maintaining their product is effective or they won’t be given cash.

I note that you classify AGW as an hypothesis so it obviously hasn’t totally convinced you. There’s hope yet!

Just call me the Switzerland of the climate change debate.

@BenSix

Thanks for replying.

Not, perhaps, on a nationwide or international scale but in our little corner of the internet. See James Delingpole on any given day

I guess I’m looking for a deserved balance. Just a little delving shows that there are many scientists with a dissenting view who don’t get proportionate cover by the MSM. While Booker and Delingpole are doing their best to promote an opposing view they admit that they aren’t scientists and thereby have limited “credibility” factor.

With regard to your point on funding. Although I hesitate to name him there are a few scientifically sceptic but qualified individuals (e.g. Piers Corbin) who make their living without state funding.

@Sunny

I’m truely amazed that you have allowed me to have what I hope has been an intelligent debate on your site without getting [troll deleted]. Although we wil never agree it is good that you let me have a voice.

If your research is just content analysis you’ve basically done nothing but state the obvious.

Have you done an ethnographic study to assertain whether this ‘content’ is actually *persuasive*?

This is a start in a vitally important area. It is possibly catastrophic that the issue of anthropogenic global warming has become a matter of political ideology. We need to develop an understanding of how this came about and is being perpetuated. I understand it’s worse in the US, where there is a risk that some of the greatest opportunities for progress may be missed.

I hope you can pursue your research in this area or that others pick up the baton.

There is no need to be alarmed about the U.S. A Republican is proposing legislation to repeal the laws of physics so problem solved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021804612.html?hpid=politics

14. BenSix – “You don’t believe there’s sometimes issues which are so clearly and urgently true that the alternative opinions aren’t worth amplifying? I don’t suspect climate change scepticism is morally and intellectually equivalent to these but would you say the same for, say, flat earthers? Holocaust revisionists? Perhaps one should, but I suspect – and I suspect you think – that there’s a qualitative standard, whatever it might be.”

I don’t think they need to be reported equally. But David Irving was reported. He had a chance to put his case in the media. His libel trial was certainly reported. No one attempted to silence those who stood up for his scholarship – and some of his books are often cited as good even if they probably should be treated with caution.

Now Holocaust Denial is about as extreme an example as I can think of. But I still don’t think that the media has a responsibility to protect us from knowing such people are out there.

16. Barbara Mendes Jorge – “sorry, but the argument goes both ways; newspapers shouldn’t go for knee-jerk scepticism nor tacit acceptance, but as sunny says, they need to reflect the scientific finsings as accurately as possible i.e. there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is happening.”

So the right wing papers were right and the left wing ones wrong? Because, as you show, the right wing ones did not go for either extreme, at least not to the exclusion of alternative views. While the left wing ones suppressed dissent. There is no scientific consensus on global warming. As any journalist would know if they spent five minutes talking to real scientists. But even if there was, that is not a reason for journalists to adhere to the narrow consensus without allowing dissent. Even the Creationists are allowed access to the media. Hell, most of the Left probably endorses creationism these days given their alliance with the Islamists. It is probably the New Statesman’s position in fact.

And by the way, there is not even a fake consensus that AGW is happening. All the IPCC claimed (all 36 scientists actually involved in that part) was that the balance of probability was that man had an influence on the climate. Which was changing. See the subtle difference?

“All those accusing me of wanting to curtail free speech – I am TENTATIVELY proposing that GUIDELINES on reporting, not saying that sceptic arguments should never be presented in the media”

Sure. As long as they are mocked, it seems you’re fine with it.

“I even say that scientists need to accept the fact that they need to be more transparent and report uncertanties in their research too, otherwise they will not be taken seriously.”

So you’re problem is that your side is not effective enough in their claims. Not that allowing public discussion is a public good.

“Scientific scepticism is not the same thing as outright denialism, and can be healthy if it’s constructive.”

Actually it is. There is no clear line between the two and all skepticism, or even denial, is good in science. No theory is final. Every single one is only accepted on sufferage for now. Besides, you miss the central point – if you want to make distinctions between skepticism and denial, if you want to go further and decide what is constructive or not, what you mean is that some body (probably a government body) needs to stand over all scientists to make sure their work is orthodox. That is, you reject free speech. Mao Zedong always said he accepted constructive criticism. It was that just most criticism, he decided, wasn’t constructive.

“I mean that scientific reporting guidelines should be available to journalists, especially those without scientific training, so they are aware of the perils of misreporting.”

Well the ignorance and stupidity of journalists is something we can agree on I am sure.

“if you would like to engage in a constructive conversation about this with me, feel free to get in touch (@flame_me_up on Twitter)”

I am sure someone would soon decide it was not constructive.

o the right wing papers were right and the left wing ones wrong? Because, as you show, the right wing ones did not go for either extreme, at least not to the exclusion of alternative views.

No the point is that right-wing papers push false equivalence – as if climate change deniers are as prominent and numerical as scientists as those who think AGW is happening. Not that difficult to understand as a concept.

SMFS -

Agreed.

“In any issue, if there are two sides, we need to know about it”

This is bullshit.

For example, a number of people significantly greater than zero believe that practicing gays should be put to death.

However, this doesn’t mean that it’s right for the newspapers to run sporadic ‘balanced’ articles on whether or not it’s a good idea to put practicing gays to death.

“There is no clear line between the two and all skepticism, or even denial, is good in science”

This is also bullshit. Blindly ignoring evidence, lying that it’s discredited, and lying that a consensus which exists does not exist is *not* good in science.

For example – if, as a scientist, you publish a paper which argues that there are problems with the siting of temperature stations in urban areas which show a false warming effect, then that’s a Good Thing. If, as another scientist, you investigate these claims and discover that this actually isn’t the case, then that’s a Good Thing too.

But if – as many prominent media AGW “skeptics” repeatedly do – you mention the first study and pretend that the second hasn’t happened, then you’re doing the opposite of science. Instead of letting the evidence change your mind, you’re concealing it and lying about it in the hope of leading other people to false conclusions.

The assorted theories surrounding AGW, in terms of mechanisms and effects, are regularly questioned, tested – then either the questions are refuted or the theories are revised. That’s science. But it has absolutely naff-all to do with the “skeptic” community, who ignore the refutations, and pretend that revisions to theories in line with the evidence somehow invalidate the whole process.

25. Sunny Hundal – “No the point is that right-wing papers push false equivalence – as if climate change deniers are as prominent and numerical as scientists as those who think AGW is happening. Not that difficult to understand as a concept.”

Well that might be an interesting argument, but it is not one the author pushed. Nor is it true that I know of. The Telegraph may have given space to Delingpole and Booker, but its editorial line was in the AGW camp. It just allowed dissent and debate. Which is what a good newspaper ought to do.

I think skeptics are probably more prominent and more numerous than not, actually.

27. john b – “For example, a number of people significantly greater than zero believe that practicing gays should be put to death. However, this doesn’t mean that it’s right for the newspapers to run sporadic ‘balanced’ articles on whether or not it’s a good idea to put practicing gays to death.”

Well that is interesting. However given Britain does have large numbers of people who think practicing gays ought to be put to death I think it is better for the newspapers to let us know than pretend it does not exist. Which has been, again, another left-right split in newspaper policy.

“This is also bullshit. Blindly ignoring evidence, lying that it’s discredited, and lying that a consensus which exists does not exist is *not* good in science.”

Well that is half right. Ignoring evidence is not good – it is not good when warmists do it (as with the Siberian pines or pretty much any other proxy), it is not good when a skeptic does it. Incompetence and outright fraud is not a monopoly on either side. The consensus does not exist. That is a statement of fact. I don’t see the point even debating it.

“For example – if, as a scientist, you publish a paper which argues that there are problems with the siting of temperature stations in urban areas which show a false warming effect, then that’s a Good Thing. If, as another scientist, you investigate these claims and discover that this actually isn’t the case, then that’s a Good Thing too.”

True. And see how skepticism and even denial worked out so well for the second scientist? That is why we need more of it. People need to question.

“But if – as many prominent media AGW “skeptics” repeatedly do – you mention the first study and pretend that the second hasn’t happened, then you’re doing the opposite of science. Instead of letting the evidence change your mind, you’re concealing it and lying about it in the hope of leading other people to false conclusions.”

Indeed. And if you publish bullshit based on useless models using cherry picked data to come to a pre-existing conclusion, as so many Warmists do, then you are not doing science either. All the more reason for people to be skeptical.

“The assorted theories surrounding AGW, in terms of mechanisms and effects, are regularly questioned, tested – then either the questions are refuted or the theories are revised. That’s science.”

Actually no, that is not what is happening. They are not questioned or tested. We can simply look to the literature and see there is a major bias towards confirmation. Too large to be accidental.

And given you know nothing about the skeptic community you should not comment on it.

> …right-wing newspapers quote climate sceptics more frequently…

No, they quote fossil-funded ‘think’ tanks, retired mining executives, dishonest radio weathermen, ignorant economists, loony lords and assorted cranks.

Calling the anti-science liars and deniers, ‘sceptics’ gives them false credibility and helps promote their propaganda and disinformation. http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/skeptics-contrarians-or-deniers/

> …the “Climategate” scandal…

What “scandal”? The fact that a national science organisation was subject to a malicious attack, their IT system was compromised and private emails stolen?

Or the scandal that the MSM fell for the narrative provided by the deniers – even though it was obvious that CRU, Professor Jones, et al had been victims of malicious Freedom of Information requests and harassment for years?

Certainly, there was no “scandal” as far as the scientists and science were concerned. Every official investigation – 5 in total on both sides of the Atlantic – cleared all scientists of all allegations of dishonesty. Also, multiple credible sources analysed the emails and found no case against the scientists involved. This is borne out by the fact that not a single piece of science has been overturned as a result of the theft.

The stolen CRU emails – not “Climategate”, which immediately implies wrong-doing – was a smear campaign. Nothing more.

> …scientists and other special interest groups must also accept that they must be more transparent with their data…

Who has not been “transparent”? The IPCC? The Royal Society? NASA? NOAA?

Maybe CRU? They provided all the data that was theirs to provide.

> …communicate more effectively with their audience and that they too are powerful stakeholders which can influence an audience…

Do you have some concrete suggestions over and above the massive communication effort already undertaken by everyone from climate scientists to bloggers?

Aside from confirming what many of us already knew – climate denial is primarily a rightwing affliction – this article was very poorly framed. Almost suspiciously so….

~~~

Why are online comments’ sections over-run by the anti-science, pro-pollution crowd? Bots and automated sockpuppets.

Sean O’Hare:

> @Sunny … You label me a “denier”. I prefer to be classed as a sceptic…

Of course you do – it makes you feel as though your position is reasonable. It’s not. You’re no different to a creationist or flat-earther – you’re in opposition to all modern science. You’re a clueless crank.

- Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity as per the IPCC. No scientific body of national or international standing offers a dissenting opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

- Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract + http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html

- 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

Cue: “science isn’t done by consensus!!1!” No, it’s not – but why do you think the planet’s experts are in total agreement?

However given Britain does have large numbers of people who think practicing gays ought to be put to death I think it is better for the newspapers to let us know than pretend it does not exist.

Agreed. In a similar vein, I’m entirely happy for newspapers to report “there are quite a few cranks who have very little idea what they’re talking about who reject all scientific evidence for AGW in favour of the latest loony rant from Glenn Beck”.

And see how skepticism and even denial worked out so well for the second scientist? That is why we need more of it. People need to question.

Yes. Real scepticism. Your lot *don’t* question – they flatly deny, and reject any evidence that doesn’t fit with their worldview.

Actually no, that is not what is happening. They are not questioned or tested. We can simply look to the literature and see there is a major bias towards confirmation. Too large to be accidental.

I literally don’t understand what you’re saying here. “When scientists investigate other scientists’ studies whose conclusions support AGW theory, they are likely to find that the studies check out. Therefore, there must be a confirmation bias rather than, say, the studies being correct, because… erm, it snowed last month and Steve Jones was once rude in an email”.

And given you know nothing about the skeptic community you should not comment on it.

The minute the ‘skeptic’ community adopts the same approach to climate science that you’re suggesting I adopt towards them, I’ll be happy to ignore them completely.

Cue: “science isn’t done by consensus!!1!” No, it’s not – but why do you think the planet’s experts are in total agreement?

Because they’re EVIL LIEBERALS who want to ENSLAVE US ALL and install a COMMIE WORLD GOVERNMENT, of course.

As far as I am aware, Global Warming has been on the mainstream radar for something like twenty-five years. For my own part, I have online and in various forum/bloggs/message boards for about the last fifteen of these years. In all of that time, I have witnessed the ‘deniers’ ludicrous claims. From the very first day of joining the online community, I have been utterly convinced that the deniers’ agenda is not to ‘question’ but merely disrupt. I have seen nothing to change my view on this.

At some point we have to accept the fact that these people are not ‘sceptics’ but simply lying greedy vermin, who simply want to carry on they way they always have, irrespective of the damage they are doing. We have seen the claims of these people become more shrill and desperate, as the science has subsequently tightened up. On the other hand, we have also seen the ‘Left’s’ insistence that we merely need to explain the science more clearly to convince the sceptics. I think that the time for engagement has passed. These people are no more interested in the ‘science’ than a swarm of locusts is interested in crop rotation. The deniers are not and cannot be thought of as basically ‘decent but misguided’, they are nothing more than scum and we need to treat them as such. Trying to appeal to their side is a waste of time, because they are not interested. It is now down to science versus the Tory vermin and some of actually hope the science wins. If you or anyone else thinks you can change the anti science people, good luck to you.

I think we need to look at the people we have on board and see if we have the numbers to change the Country’s behaviour with what we have got, rather than appeal to ‘So much for subtly’ and the other fuckwits.

If we don not, then we need to admit that, accept that we are fucked and move on.

The deniers are not and cannot be thought of as basically ‘decent but misguided’, they are nothing more than scum and we need to treat them as such. Trying to appeal to their side is a waste of time, because they are not interested. It is now down to science versus the Tory vermin and some of actually hope the science wins. If you or anyone else thinks you can change the anti science people, good luck to you.

You’re wrong for two reasons:

1) we’re losing (or at least, not winning) the debate *among the mainstream public*. Not amongst Delingpole-ish arseholes, but among ordinary people who just read the papers and believe what they say.

2) at the same time, not all ‘Tory vermin’ are in the anti-science camp. James Murdoch, boss of News International (=Murdoch’s business in Europe and Asia) believes climate change is a serious threat. Boris Johnson is strongly in the non-denialist camp; his brother runs PwC’s sustainability practice. Among intelligent people who are right-wing-but-not-mental, of whom there are still many (especially outside the US), AGW is still believed – the gulf is in communicating that with ordinary people who’ve fallen for the Palin message.

John B @ 34

I absolutely agree with you that we have lost (rather than losing) the argument regarding Climate Change, but how much of that is down to genuine confusion over the science and how much of that is down to people simply ‘not giving a fuck’ is anyone’s guess. It is difficult to see how people are still confused over the science after all these years. The science is out there for anyone even vaguely interested. I cannot believe for example, that people still find the concept that just because natural event have cooled or warmed the planet in the past does not exclude a man made component today. Are there millions of people out there that find the concept of ‘death by natural causes’ and murder not being mutually exclusive, for example? I think not. Could it be that treating the Delingpoles Booker et al with some kind of respect that they simply do not deserve has helped sow genuine confusion among these ‘misguided’ people?

Lets face it John, if we have not got a majority now, then we will never have one. If people are genuinely confused then the Right have won. They have too much power, money and influence for the science to peak its nose through and there is little point in attempting to counteract them. For a start, they want it more, because they think they have more to lose in terms of political clout, money and power to give up. We have tried to explain the science for at least twenty years, now. If you can think of the way to explain that the Medieval Warm Period does not mean than man’s influence on the climate can be dismissed, then good luck to you, but if that person has not understood any of that for the last twenty years, then you are pissing in the wind.

There may well be a small band at the top of the Tory ranks who understand the position, but they are in the extreme minority among their peers. Look at any comments on a Tory blogg to see for yourself. Anyone who joins the Party of Lord Monkton and the Party of unadulterated greed cannot count himself as an environmentalist. Whether we like it or not, but the Term ‘environmentalists’ and large ‘C’ Conservatives has been mutually exclusive since the days of Thatcherism.

People like Goldsmith need to ask themselves why the joined an anti science Party in the first place. I have heard of these mythical ‘nice Tories’, yet the evidence is far and few between. Why is it that ‘people’ like Tory bear are never challenged by any of the people you mention? Why is it always the Left that take them on?

A few further things:

@Shatterface agree that content analysis on its own is not enough; I also did a metaphor analysis which attempted to compare the newspapers in the way their used metaphors in their headlines as well as identifying the main metaphorical concepts used across all newspapers to describe global warming. I didn’t have the space to fit the results from that in this article, if you’re interested let me know.

However, I do think it’s rather presumptuous in saying that content analysis is just restating the obvious; it depends how you analyse the results, and how powerful your coding frame is (mine was based on a heavily trialled one by an academic called Max Boykoff who was looking at climate change reporting in tabloids). Lots of research (in the media) involving climate change has looked at either just the media or the audience has been very informative. Also, my research question did not focus on audience effects, because I did not have the time or resources to do an ethnographic study/conduct interviews etc. This does not mean that I do not endorse looking at both the media and the audience in the same piece of research, in fact I welcome it, as I’m sure it will be enlightening.

@SoMuchforSubtlety
“Hell, most of the Left probably endorses creationism these days given their alliance with the Islamists”
You’re right – after this ludicrous comment, I cannot take you seriously and will desist in engaging in constructive conversation with you! A shame really…

For all people commenting on this thread – highly recommend “Why we Disagree about Climate Change” by Mike Hulme if you would like to understand the social science behind all this arguing…

Also, there is a debate going on between the labelling of “sceptics” versus “deniers” in climate change – there’s loads of articles about the semantics of this on the web. I would start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial. I agree with Peter Christoff: “climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science”.

A very interesting article on a very important topic. I wonder how much of the change you identify mid-decade can be traced to more general changes news media. It sometimes feels to me that polemical “journalism” has been on a rapid rise whilst old fashioned reporting (aka journalism) has been in significant decline. Employing a journalist, particularly specialised science journalist, is relatively expensive, particularly relative to the number of readers attracted. Compare that to a polemicist who can churn out 2-3 articles a week mixing a tiny amount of research and some cherry-picked facts with a huge amount of hyperbole. When polemicists are more important to a newspaper’s circulation science issues will become more politicised.

I suppose that what I am saying is that financial pressures have forced newspapers to dumb-down over the past decade.

32. John B

> …I’m entirely happy for newspapers to report “there are quite a few cranks who have very little idea what they’re talking about who reject all scientific evidence for AGW in favour of the latest loony rant from Glenn Beck”.

Exactly. “AGW is happening” / “AGW is not happening” are not two, equal, competing positions. One is all of modern science, the other is flat-earthery and should be reported as such.

> Because they’re EVIL LIEBERALS who want to ENSLAVE US ALL and install a COMMIE WORLD GOVERNMENT, of course.

New World Order! Al Gore! Lizard people!!!1!

~~~

33. Jim:

> …I have been utterly convinced that the deniers’ agenda is not to ‘question’ but merely disrupt.

Agreed. That is the overwhelming majority. They just vomit up the same bullshit that was debunked last time. Day after day, week after week – with an occasional, new meme du jour thrown in.

~~~

34. John B:

> …we’re losing (or at least, not winning) the debate *among the mainstream public*.

Not true – that’s the narrative the deniers push. Like everything else they produce, it’s shite:

- UK: 83% view climate change as a current or imminent threat. Deniers represent fringe position and mainly comprised of old, male conservatives. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/31/public-belief-climate-change

- American opinion on global warming is once again on the rise. http://www.physorg.com/news195236638.html

> …not all ‘Tory vermin’ are in the anti-science camp.

True, but not one of them (AFAIK) is advocating the urgency of action needed. It’s largely lip service. Actually, you could say that of just about every politician outside the Green Party. We need nothing short of a WWII-style mobilisation.

Let’s hope that Rupert croaks ASAP and his son remains true to his word.

P.S. Note that many of the deniers that turn up on British, left-wing blogs and newspapers are Teabagging / Kochsucking Yanks.

- Training Tea Party Activists In Guerilla Internet Tactics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGB8Uuffi4M

@Sean O’Hare #16:

“Although I hesitate to name him there are a few scientifically sceptic but qualified individuals (e.g. Piers Corbin) who make their living without state funding.”

Piers Corbyn might prefer it if you spelt his name correctly…

But then again; what (relevant) qualifications does Piers Corbyn have? Apart, that is, from claiming to be a world leading long-range forecaster, based largely on mentioning his successful predictions rather more often than his unsuccessful ones?

@ 39 BlueRock

“Training Tea Party Activists In Guerilla Internet Tactics. ”

I’m not inclined to believe that’s real. You’d have to be really stupid to brag about that kind of behaviour on camera.

41. Chaise Guevara

> I’m not inclined to believe that’s real. You’d have to be really stupid to brag about that kind of behaviour on camera.

An under-cover journalist recorded it while making http://www.astroturfwars.com/

Even without knowing that, I would have predicted it was happening given what I know about the tactics employed by the Kochsuckers.

we’re losing (or at least, not winning) the debate *among the mainstream public*. Not amongst Delingpole-ish arseholes, but among ordinary people who just read the papers and believe what they say.

I’m afraid this isn’t true. Or at least, it isn’t true that coverage of AGW denialism has significantly shifted opinion amongst the public. Belief in man-made AGW is still as high as evolution (see polls on this site) and shifts more around issues like cold climate (yes, people actually believe severe cold spells mean less chance of global warming!) and de-prioritise environmentalism when times are hard.

Sunny @ 43

The fact that acceptance of AGW goes down every time it snows makes the point that we have lost the argument. If we cannot get across the fact that we are not talking about the day to day weather, but long term shifts in climate, then we are chapping. I can see your point regarding economic pressures v Climate Change though. I agree that anything that tackles Climate Change has to work in economic benefits into the strategy.

Are you sure Simon Schaffer is a climate sceptic? I very much admired his “Light Fantastic” and the contributions he regularly makes to “In Our Time” (for example). I got no impression from these that he numbered himself among the ranks of ideologically driven libertarians who write against climate change in the Torygraph.

44. Jim:

> The fact that acceptance of AGW goes down every time it snows makes the point that we have lost the argument.

It fluctuates a little. There’s a fringe of numpties who are uncertain and get swayed by nonsense like “OMG! Snow! No global warming!!”

As difficult as it is at times, don’t get swayed by the walls of comments on the interwebs that make it appear that deniers are prevalent. They’re not. It’s just a subject that has sucked in every crank and attention-seeker on the planet – especially the ones who gain enjoyment from irritating lefties.

~~~

45. Briar:

> Are you sure Simon Schaffer is a climate sceptic?

I just did a few searches – can’t find any sign that he’s a denier. In fact, no sign that he’s ever written for the Torygraph.

About the only thing I found was http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/1329/82 – see towards bottom of page, a presentation about the “distinction between models and measures on the one hand, and behaviours and stories on the other.” I guess the deniers could find a few bones in that to gnaw on….

@ 42 BlueRock

“Even without knowing that, I would have predicted it was happening given what I know about the tactics employed by the Kochsuckers.”

Oh yeah. I was only surprised that it was being recorded.

@ 44 Jim

“The fact that acceptance of AGW goes down every time it snows makes the point that we have lost the argument. If we cannot get across the fact that we are not talking about the day to day weather, but long term shifts in climate, then we are chapping”

That doesn’t make sense. Unless you can convince 100% of people – which you never will on any issue, ever – then there will always be people who are on the middle ground. Of these, some will be ignorant enough to make mistakes like thinking cold weather means they don’t have to worry about climate change. You could have 10% or 90% of people convinced of the truth, but acceptance would always fall to some extent when it snowed.

“yes, people actually believe severe cold spells mean less chance of global warming!”

I suspect this is largely because the pro AGW side claimed that any weather event was evidence for their cause, unsurprisingly this has come round to bite them on the rear. On the plus side this tactic seems to be used far less now and hopefully the hysteria on either side will die down a bit given time.

49. Falco:

> I suspect this is largely because the pro AGW side claimed that any weather event was evidence for their cause…

No, only you deniers battle that strawman. Here are a few tasters of what the science is telling us:

* Climate change doubled likelihood of devastating UK floods of 2000. Researchers have for the first time quantified the part climate change played in increasing the risk of a severe flood. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/16/climate-change-risk-uk-floods

* NASA explains how Europe can be so cold amidst the hottest November and hottest year on record. http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/12/nasa-explains-how-europe-can-be-so-cold-amidst-the-hottest-november-and-hottest-year-on-record/

* Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30?years. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03906.html

* Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes. Climate models suggest that extreme precipitation events will become more common in an anthropogenically warmed climate. …observations reveal a distinct link between rainfall extremes and temperature, with heavy rain events increasing during warm periods … the observed amplification of rainfall extremes is found to be larger than that predicted by models, implying that projections of future changes in rainfall extremes in response to anthropogenic global warming may be underestimated. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5895/1481.abstract

Remember: the science has *always* predicted that global warming would cause disruptions in our weather patterns and more extreme weather events – heat, cold, rain, drought, wind. It’s happening. Now.

> …unsurprisingly this has come round to bite them on the rear.

Ooh! Is this another “nail in the global warming coffin”?! Do elaborate!

> On the plus side this tactic seems to be used far less now and hopefully the hysteria on either side will die down a bit given time.

I’ve not seen much hysterics from climate and ocean scientists, just increasingly urgent warnings of dire consequences if we continue pumping billions of tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere every year.

Of course, hysterics from you deniers is ever-present….

@ 49

“I suspect this is largely because the pro AGW side claimed that any weather event was evidence for their cause”

Lol. Ignorant deniers can’t blame the other side for their own ignorance. If you (not YOU) are really so poorly informed on the issue that you think a cold snap disproves AGW, you shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously.

@ Chaise: True, however the corollary is that if you think a heat wave, or indeed a cold snap, does prove it then you’re sat in the non-science camp of idiots next door to the “deniers”.

@BlueRock: I don’t think you quite got what I was on about. There certainly was a time when weather events were reported as “caused by global warming” and very little was done to dispel this notion. As above, either side claiming weather = climate is very silly but both lots have been at it, a certain numpty ex Vice President for instance.

@ 52 Falco.

I agree, especially if you’re pointing to a single event and saying “OMG global warming!!!11″. It’s the same error. However, presented global weather trends over a longer period of time would be more reasonable. Human behaviour and climate change are a bit like cigarettes and cancer – they’re related, but it’s almost impossible to prove that the former is (or is not) the cause of a specific case of the latter.

@ Chaise: I like the cigs / cancer comparison because while smoking is a cause, (and a very significant one), it is only one of many causes resulting in a particular effect. The difficulty is working out whether human activity affects the climate on the order of smoking / cancer or occasional fry up / cancer.

@Falco #52:

“There certainly was a time when weather events were reported as “caused by global warming” and very little was done to dispel this notion.”

Really? When? A few examples would suffice. That science journalism is poor generally is a given with few exceptions (if you’ve read Ben Goldacre) – but your suggestion seems to be that it’s the scientists who were at fault.

“As above, either side claiming weather = climate is very silly but both lots have been at it,”

False equivalence; that a journalist reporting the science side overeggs the pudding is not equivalent to the entire denialist industry jumping on any cold weather as proof of the death of what they call CAGW.

“a certain numpty ex Vice President for instance.”

And what is it with the “Algore is fat” tendency?

52. Falco:

> I don’t think you quite got what I was on about. … a certain numpty ex Vice President for instance.

No, I get exactly what you’re on about – an inability to separate wingnut idiocy from science.

> There certainly was a time when weather events were reported as “caused by global warming” and very little was done to dispel this notion.

Here’s some more for you to grapple with:

* “…would these [extreme] events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm? … almost certainly not.” http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/01/hansen-extreme-events-2010-2012-record-high-global-temperature/

* “…there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change.” http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/14/ncar-trenberth-global-warming-extreme-weather-rain-deluge/

> As above, either side claiming weather = climate is very silly but both lots have been at it,

Only one side do that. You deniers.

@ Robin: I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned Al Gore’s weight, (numpty meaning idiot or fool). As for the examples why not start here:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

It was the reporting that I was criticising given that if the scientists were screaming that the media had it all wrong then that wasn’t, for one obvious reason or another, being reported. I think either side going over the top is to be discouraged, there is no “false equivalence” there.

@ BlueRock: I love your combining “No, I get exactly what you’re on about – an inability to separate wingnut idiocy from science.” and “Only one side do that. You deniers.”

There are people on both sides that I’m sure the saner members would rather be without, thinking that only applies to one side shows considerable myopia.

@Falco #57:

“I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned Al Gore’s weight, (numpty meaning idiot or fool).”

But why did you even mention Al Gore; given that you didn’t mention an AG quote in your response? My objection is to the personalisation of the issue; what does the numptiness of Algore (or his fatness) have to do with the issues?

“As for the examples why not start here:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htmIt was the reporting that I was criticising given that if the scientists were screaming that the media had it all wrong then that wasn’t, for one obvious reason or another, being reported. I think either side going over the top is to be discouraged, there is no “false equivalence” there.”

Taking one of the more absurd apparent claims (Global warming caused the Air France crash), what do you object to in this statement?

“A consequence of global warming is that the frequency and severity of such events (severe weather conditions) is higher,” Aleksey Kokorin, head of Russia’s World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Program, told RT. “Unfortunately, the risk for airplanes, especially in tropical areas above water, will be higher. This could be difficult for pilots to understand.””

The claim is of course never made in the report linked to that AGW caused the crash; the closest is the claim that “a Russian climatologist believes global warming played a significant part”; a claim that itself isn’t borne out by the quote from the climatologist.

Of course there is false equivalence; the denialists as a group (including their alleged experts) will point to *any* cold weather as disproof of AGW. Some misguided journalists will attribute individual extreme weather events to AGW. That is not equivalence.

57. Falco:

> I love your combining “No, I get exactly what you’re on about – an inability to separate wingnut idiocy from science.” and “Only one side do that. You deniers.”

What do you love? That I’ve clearly pointed out your wingnut idiocy of introducing Al Gore for absolutely no reason?

> There are people on both sides that I’m sure the saner members would rather be without, thinking that only applies to one side shows considerable myopia.

Lord Monckton, James Delingpole, Glenn Beck, Senator Inhofe, etc. etc. – a bunch of clueless, ranting idiots and liars.

Equivalent climate realists? None. We’ve got climate scientists and a bunch of commentators that report the science.

You need to spend a lot more time reading science and a lot less producing this empty, wingnut rhetoric.

Meanwhile, poor old Johnny Ball has got into a right two and eight, because he thinks he has spotted a flaw in the science that the World’s Climate scienists have collectively missed and have continued to miss for the last two hundred years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359350/Zoe-Balls-father-Johnny-vilified-questioning-global-warming.html

Being a TV presenter has given Johnny a level of knowledge that is made him peerless in this field…
…or something.

@ BlueRock: Once again, compare and contrast: “Lord Monckton, James Delingpole, Glenn Beck, Senator Inhofe, etc. etc. – a bunch of clueless, ranting idiots and liars.” and “That I’ve clearly pointed out your wingnut idiocy of introducing Al Gore for absolutely no reason?”

The above does rather support my point that there are idiots on both sides. I really don’t see why this is so contentious.

@ Robin: “Of course there is false equivalence; the denialists as a group (including their alleged experts) will point to *any* cold weather as disproof of AGW. Some misguided journalists will attribute individual extreme weather events to AGW. That is not equivalence.”

Ah I see, any numpty, (clearly the word of the day), going over the top on the pro side is a sad error that should be ignored. On the other hand numpties on the anti side shows unequivocal evidence that there is a vast denier conspiracy.

All of this is rather drifting from my original point, that over stating things and getting hysterical is not the best way, for either side, to present their arguments. This has been done in the past and it seems we are getting less of it, which is a good thing, n’est pas?

61. Falco:

> The above does rather support my point that there are idiots on both sides. I really don’t see why this is so contentious.

No, you’ve offered up no idiots. You just dropped Al Gore’s name in to the conversation for no apparent reason like a typical wingnut Yank.

If you’re implying – because you say nothing clearly – that Gore’s film is flawed, you’re wrong. UK High Court judge, Justice Burton: “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

* http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors-intermediate.htm

In comparison, the list I provided are a bunch of clueless and dishonest ideologues – with mountains more just like them amongst your denier brethren.

Your continuing empty rhetoric exposes you for what you are: just another climate change-denying troll.

Falco @ 61

What do you mean by ‘sides’ here? Do you perhaps mean the science ‘side’ versus the ‘Right Wing idealogy’ side? You surely cannot be arguing that there are two sides on the science debate here. Even the most halfwitted Tory surely accepts that the science debate concerning both the existence and cause of Global Warming has been over for about twenty to thirty years?

We all know what this is about, surely to fuck you cannot be seriously holding out hope that the entire laws of science are about to blown out of the water by the actions of a bunch of Tory vermin, motivated by nothing more than their own selfish greed?

You cannot be that deluded, can you? Are you so much a prick that you cannot even, just once in your pathetic life just concede that this is merely all about the fact that you have no wish to change your lifestyle to save the lives of millions of our fellow humans?

Are you genuinely attempting to cling onto the ‘hope’ that this Global Warming thing is just a two hundred plus year old conspiracy thought up by the World’s scientist to tax people? You surely do not actually believe that the entire laws of physics have been intricately concocted to support this greenhouse gas theory?

And all this has been done so well that the World’s scientists have all been fooled completely, yet the only people who seen through this are a few oil executives, their paid lackeys and a few Tory fuckwits, who think something thought up in two minutes? The same Tory fuckwits who have shown an absolute dearth of knowledge on the subject or even an idea of how the concept even fits together have managed to unravel to most intricately detailed hoax ever invented. A plot so complex that every scientific field has been infiltrated, every scientific theory and experiment and associated data has had to be falsified. Every piece of satellite data falsified, every piece of soil sample, ice sample faked.

All this done, for what? Why would thousands of scientists over two hundred years go to such lengths? Why would anyone go to such a charade that would make every ‘moon landing hoaxer’, ‘Devinci Code’ reader and 9/11-obsessed nutjob guffaw?

Even if it has been done, you feel able qualified to spot such a plot? You have no idea of the science, no concept of the theory and you do not even have an idea of the full scientific implications of Global Warming being wrong, do you? Be honest, you think that if AGW was ‘wrong’ then everything would go back to normal? You seriously are unaware of the fact that if this could be proved wrong then the entire laws of physics as we know them would need to be re-written, aren’t you? I mean you cannot simply think this written on the back of a fag packet to justify a research grant? It has, at some point, crossed your mind that Global Warming is not some discreet part of ‘science’ that can be brought down, without affecting everything else?

@ BlueRock: I think it is widely acknowledged, and this was the reason I used Al Gore as an example, that he made several claims that were significantly overstated, (the 20ft sea level rise for instance). This, and I hate to bang on about it when you’d rather be demonising me, was the point I was making in the first place.

@ Jim: I think you may fall foul of the comments policy there. Quite how pointing out that on occasion the media have reached for too much conclusion on too little evidence in the past and that this is unhelpful should set me up for such vituperation I have no idea.

I have not really gone into the science on this page, mostly because my comment was about the presentation. However, I think that we can say that when a charming fellow such as your good self writes;

“We all know what this is about, surely to fuck you cannot be seriously holding out hope that the entire laws of science are about to blown out of the water by the actions of a bunch of Tory vermin, motivated by nothing more than their own selfish greed?

You cannot be that deluded, can you? Are you so much a prick that you cannot even, just once in your pathetic life just concede that this is merely all about the fact that you have no wish to change your lifestyle to save the lives of millions of our fellow humans?”

then my earlier hope that “the hysteria on either side will die down a bit given time.” may be a bit premature.

64. Falco:

So, you can offer no “idiots” on the reality-based side and now you’re going to broadcast your ignorance / dishonesty about the accuracy of what Al Gore said.

Gore said that *if* Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheets melted, sea levels would rise by 20 feet from each. That is completely accurate (actually 23.6 feet for Greenland and 16.4 feet for WAIS).

Remind me: who’s the idiot here?

> …you’d rather be demonising me…

It’s more ‘idiotise’ – and you’re doing that all on your own without any help from me.

P.S Both Greenland and WAIS are showing signs of instability and rapid loss of mass.

@ BlueRock: Perhaps this report of the judgement might interest you, since you clearly have none of your own:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece

67. Falco:

I love the way you ignore that I prove you wrong each time and you simply move to something else. Intellectual dishonesty on display! A good, little denier.

> Perhaps this report of the judgement might interest you, since you clearly have none of your own:

We’ve already done the issues in Gore’s film. Are you not reading the links I keep spoon feeding you? If you don’t read things you won’t learn anything.

On the issues raised by Judge Burton, the science more often agrees with Gore than the judge because he simply compared them to the IPCC which is well-known to be out of date on issues such as sea level rise due to glacier melt.

Despite that the conclusion from Justice Burton was:

“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills

Who is lacking in judgement here?

@ BlueRock: While I hold out little hope this will help, I think a mallet would be required to get an idea through your skull, Mr Justice Burton identified a number of inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s film:

“Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary…He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.”

“The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.”

““The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.””

As I have repeatedly pointed out, in the face of unpleasant and pointless abuse, claiming more than can be proved and in some cases claiming things that simply are impossible is counter productive when it comes to convincing people that you’re scientifically correct and honest. You claim that it is only “deniers” that have ever done this which is entirely untrue. Is it that you want any claim that human activity is causing damage to stand regardless of it’s veracity?

69. Falco

Repeating issues that have already been addressed, that are trivial, irrelevant, disingenuous or bullshit really only exposes what type of person you are. You’re in a hole. Stop digging.

@ BlueRock & Jim: Ah, I see the problem now. I’ve just had one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/69qd554

@71 It’s very good of you to admit to being an idiot. Three cheers for Falco!

@Falco #61:

“Ah I see, any numpty, (clearly the word of the day), going over the top on the pro side is a sad error that should be ignored. On the other hand numpties on the anti side shows unequivocal evidence that there is a vast denier conspiracy.”

No. Try some reading comprehension. I accept that some journalists go over the top on the science side; that is however not equivalent to the entire denialist cadre claiming that AGW is dead every time the thermometer turns down.

As for Burton J’s judgment; that was entirely in the context of whether AIT was political advocacy in the broadest sense. The report of the judgment to which you have chosen to refer is simply wrong. Read the original judgment, not the report; read the original science, not the denialist interpretation of it.

The original judgment is at:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Burton J makes the following comment on the film at para 17:

“I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”);

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.”

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness statement, that:

“The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore’s Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as “very likely” to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus.

iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the “consensus” expressed in the IPCC reports.”

One of those alleged errors was this:

“1. ‘Error’ 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.”

Yet:

“It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

And yet; Algore did not say this would happen in the immediate future; the concern was that this might be the message taken away by the viewer. How do I know he did not say this? The script is quoted in the judgment as follows:

“If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans.”

Interestingly, while the IPCC 4th assessment is distinctly conservative, the consensus view of near-term sea-level rise is moving on up; see this Realclimate link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/sea-level-rise-the-new-york-times-got-the-story/