Climategate

[Thorne]

And the only people who proclaim any theory to be 100% certain are journalists; the scientists who they interview will always tell them the odds, but "as certain as the evidence allows" doesn't make as good a headline as "SCIENTIST PROVES..."

I know I've told this story before, though perhaps not here:

During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, both before and after, reporters for the networks repeatedly asked climate and weather experts whether global warming had caused Katrina to become so strong. All answered with a definitive, "Unlikely" or "Probably not."

Then someone asked the question of a "climate specialist." His response was that it was absolutely certain that global warming had caused Katrina to grow from a category three to a category five! No mention of data which supported his statement, no clarification of just what kind of "specialist" he was, just that statement.

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

[SadisticNature]

I know I've told this story before, though perhaps not here:

During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, both before and after, reporters for the networks repeatedly asked climate and weather experts whether global warming had caused Katrina to become so strong. All answered with a definitive, "Unlikely" or "Probably not."

Then someone asked the question of a "climate specialist." His response was that it was absolutely certain that global warming had caused Katrina to grow from a category three to a category five! No mention of data which supported his statement, no clarification of just what kind of "specialist" he was, just that statement.

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

And chances are good the specialty was in political advocacy at that.

On the other hand, if you focus on quality sources like peer-reviewed journals you can see all sorts of evidence that man-made chemicals are altering the Earth's temperature, and you can't see a single good study saying they don't without looking back several years. It's not because politics or other factors drive the agenda, its that those models have been refuted through further study.

We can't model everything that happens in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean we don't understand enough of the picture to reach a meaningful conclusion. Building a nuke required splitting the atom, but it doesn't require understanding the subsubatomic particles, just the subatomic ones.

[Thorne]

We can't model everything that happens in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean we don't understand enough of the picture to reach a meaningful conclusion. Building a nuke required splitting the atom, but it doesn't require understanding the subsubatomic particles, just the subatomic ones.

It's worth remembering, too, that there were scientists, reputable ones, who were afraid that setting off the first atomic bomb could destroy the atmosphere. The science said it was extremely unlikely but, as noted earlier, scientists rarely can say something is impossible. There were also fears about that big collider in Switzerland. But it's already been run and, lo and behold, no black holes eating up the Earth!

The point is, there will always be those on the margins who will play up the extreme possibilities, whether through honest concern or simply to get their faces on the news. Just remember: while a 99.999% probability may not be the same as absolutely true, it's a hell of a lot more likely than driving home from work without having an accident. Worrying about the .001% will keep you huddled in your home, afraid to open your eyes.

[leo9]

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

[FrgnSwtc]

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

I agree, to think that there's a plot against the good and unsuspecting taxpayers is a bit of a stretch.
There's been arguments on both sides since the Treaty of Rome (1957) from solid scientific research as well obscure ranters (God bless internet).

Besides, if there's a country in the western world far behind it's peers in research, investment and successes where sustainability is concerned is the US.

Respectfully,

FS

[DuncanONeil]

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

Why is it that does that do not adhere to the party line are tagged "deniers"?

Go back and read the answer to the question about the "proper global temperature".