DawnTreader - 11 October 2009 07:26 PM

This Wikipedia entry mentions funding relationships. Apparently during the 1980’s a major initiative was undertaken to wean the CPB and NPR from direct government assistance.

I remember those debates taking place during the Reagan Administration.  And I was in support of those moves to limit funding.  My only concern now is that soon thereafter rules were lifted that had previously limited media ownership (number of TV stations that could be owned etc.) Since that time, there has been an increased consolidation of media to the point that Disney, Fox, Clear Channel own a good percent of the media outlets.  The silver lining to this is that the internet, via blogs and news reports, has decontrolled the news, with the downside of limiting information confirmation.

Artman, this is one of the few times that I agree with the BBC. Is there climate change? Yes. Is this change caused by human activity? No! As I have repeatedly said, this is nothing more than an attack on the free market and capitalism. A power grab, plain and simple.

And as for government supported media, how would you report the news, if you knew that conservative politicians wanted to cut your budget and liberal politicians wanted to increase your budget? Looks like bias to me.

MacCube - 11 October 2009 07:50 PM

Artman, this is one of the few times that I agree with the BBC. Is there climate change? Yes. Is this change caused by human activity? No! As I have repeatedly said, this is nothing more than an attack on the free market and capitalism. A power grab, plain and simple.

And as for government supported media, how would you report the news, if you knew that conservative politicians wanted to cut your budget and liberal politicians wanted to increase your budget? Looks like bias to me.

It is curious timing this topic makes AFB, as I have plans to watch “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Al Gore and other “lefties” argue the nexus of global warming with human behavior and gassy cows.  I have an open mind, but my suspicion is that although human behavior contributes to climate change, the natural cycle of the earth and sun are more responsible for it.

artman1033 - 11 October 2009 07:36 PM

(PLEASE NOTE INTENTIONAL CAPS LOCK)

I AM LEFT HANDED TOO!

PLEASE COMMENT ON THE POST!!!!

A BBC REPORT SAYS THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

C’mon… this thread wouldn’t have got so sidetracked if your hadn’t emphasized the BBC being run by “LEFTIES”.

OK! AL GORE on polar bears!

So, before I go and look at this video, what do you want me to think? That Gore is right or wrong? and why?

Laurie Fleming - 14 October 2009 02:47 PM

So, before I go and look at this video, what do you want me to think? That Gore is right or wrong? and why?

Al Gore said global warming would cause polar bears to cease to exist over time.

The question was “There are more polar bears alive today, than when Al said they were going to die!”

Al would not answer the question.

artman1033 - 14 October 2009 03:39 PM

Laurie Fleming - 14 October 2009 02:47 PM

So, before I go and look at this video, what do you want me to think? That Gore is right or wrong? and why?

Al Gore said global warming would cause polar bears to cease to exist over time.

iGore also said that he had invented the internet. Just because he told that lie, doesn’t mean he can’t be trusted. Does it? Go for it Laurie, be brave, just watch the video.

[quoting removed]

Why don’t you do some of us here a service and tell us what it says?

[unnecessary quoting removed]
I know I have trouble with streaming video sometimes, so a description of the video is not out of order.

Gore is speaking about the perils of global warming. A questioner brings up the fact that there are several errors in the facts presented in Gore’s movie.  Gore defends by stating that since the courts ruled the movie could be shown in schools, the question of errors is moot.

In the exchange, Gore brings up the fact that the claim from the movie that polar bears are endangered by global warming as a case-in-point.  The questioner responds by pointing out that polar bear populations are actually on the increase.  Gore’s response is to ask whether the questioner believes polar bears are endangered,  The questioner repeats his statement that polar bears are on the increase, then tries to follow up with the conclusions that if their populations are growing, it indicates they are not threatened by global warming. But he is, basically, shouted down.

It gets a bit unruly, Gore trying to move on to other matters while the questioner tries to get Gore to address the discrepancy in polar bear populations in light of the claim that global warming is a threat to their existence. At one point, an official from Gore’s camp walks up and turns off the questioner’s microphone.

The video itself is actually made by the person who tried to question Gore. It is part of a much longer piece which challenges the validity of Gore’s movie, and also brings up several questions about the motivations of those involved in its creation.

[unnecessary quoting removed]

Thanks. In my case, YouTube is censored in China, and I usually don’t bother firing up a VPN for one-off things like this.

Compute17 - 16 October 2009 08:26 AM

Interesting piece. Yeah, this is one huge problem with the climate change debate - the believers are not allowed to be questioned. To them people are in denial and cannot be taken into consideration. The one thing that I always find the most baffling aspect is that the sun and its cyclic behaviors isn’t discussed much at all in the debate - yet, without doubts its the most decisive factor in the global climate. Interestingly enough, for the past two years the sun has produced almost no sunspots - which seems to coincide with a slight cooling and cloud cover in many places on earth for that same period of time.

The real science of the global warming issue has been, largely, ignored. Those who support the idea that human activity is responsible (labeled Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW) pick out the tidbits that seem to support their views, such as the definite correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, and ignore other facts, such as a lack of any evidence that CO2 is a forcer (ie: cause) in increasing global temperatures.

Proponents of AGW point repeatedly to the “fact” that thousands of scientists support AGW based on a report disseminated at an international global warming summit. What the proponents ignore (or may not know) is that the list of names of scientists on that report were included for any and all contributions to the data sets included in the report, INCLUDING scientists who do not support the conclusions! A number of scientists have even sued (unsuccessfully) to have their names removed from the report.

Additionally, there have been scientists working in government positions who have literally lost their jobs for publicly stating they do not agree with AGW theory. The chief meteorologist in the state of Oregon was dismissed because his “views are contrary to the policy of this administration” (“this administration” meaning the governor’s office.) What is up with that? I mean, we have a man of science, whose specialty is studying things like climate and climate change, is dismissed because his PROFESSIONAL opinion, based on SCIENTIFIC evidence, differs from that of a politician (who probably doesn’t know cumulonimbus from stratocirrus)! Talk about turning off someone’s microphone (figuratively) to squelch opposing opinion!

Frankly, I find the way it has been turned into a political issue of significant concern. We are facing a severe economic crisis, trying to pull ourselves out and not, at present, getting very far. But at the same time, AGW proponents are talking about crippling our energy and transportation infrastructures by punishing those industries dependent on fossil fuels. We can NOT afford, especially at this time under the current economic conditions, to be considering economically harmful measures to curb what is, in reality, a highly questionable cause/effect relationship. But the political movement that has gathered behind this issue is, quite frankly, the dictionary definition of a political ideology that refuses to listen to facts.

I was not going to watch the video because of a trap placed by the patronising dissembler MacCube a few weeks ago, and I would rather have it précised as you have done. Thank you, although there are other interpretations: http://sej2009.sej.org/2009/10/polar-bears-censorship.html - this one from the mouth of the Tim Wheeler who shut Phelim McAleer down, giving the reasons why he did so.

I have no knowledge about the state of polar bears, whether their numbers are increasing or not. I won’t take the word of a journalist on it because unless I am mistaken, he is not an expert on Arctic biology and animal census taking. I would make a reasonable assumption that you, Zewazir, and Artman#### (how do you pronounce your name?) aren’t either. I would also hazard that the majority of those who claim there is no global warming aren’t climate scientists. It would appear (to me) that the majority of climatologists themselves tend to come down on the side of, as you put it, AGW.

For every case put forward but ignorant people (and I am, in the area of climate change, ignorant - as are you), someone on the other side of the fence will put forward another. This is not conducive to discovering what the real situation is. Whatever happened to a good dose of scepticism? From Lord Bertrand Russell’s On The Value Of Scepticism

There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein’s view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

I take it that your reference to the international global warming summit is that set up by the Heartland Institute? If so, there is your bias straight away. Dr Jim Salinger and other New Zealand climatologists are still fuming quite rightly about that.

This is a similar debate to that of those who claim that creationism is science and evolution is bunk. For every scientist who is a creationist (and vanishingly few of those are biologists, palaeontologists or other relevant specialists), there are many, many more who support evolution. It’s not because they “believe” in evolution, because it’s not something that is “believed” in - they have the evidence to support it. Three cheers for Project Steve. While the experts disagree, it is dangerous for any of us to form a strong opinion.

So we have scientists who are promoting a point of view, but in an area which is not their speciality. There are scientists on both sides who do have evidence on which to base their claims. We have the hoi-polloi who have their own barrow to push based on their own prejudices and refuse to listen to the other side. And in the Arctic, we have summer clear water over the North Pole, and a North-West Passage that is now navigable. There are so many people who deny that humans can have any effect on the atmosphere, but then there are (man-made) chlorofluorocarbons which are a component of ozone depletion. (Yes, I know CFCs aren’t “greenhouse gases”, but only contradict their part in ozone depletion if you are a chemist.)

By profession I am a logician and data warehouse developer. I get brought into organisations when their data stores are producing ambiguous results, and I attempt to find out from the data what the real position is. People are hopelessly biased, data isn’t. Data doesn’t care - it just is. There are no grey areas as long as people don’t get involved. The trick is to winnow out where people are having a bad effect on the data and let it speak for itself. So produce all the evidence you can against climate change - fine, but also produce all the evidence you can for climate change as well. Otherwise you’re just wasting your time.

Stick up for your economy and support your local industry, sure, but consider the people of Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Maldives, whose land is being whittled away by the sea rising. There’s no contradiction to that - it’s really happening. If that’s caused by the natural cycles of the planet, then that’s an awful shame. But if it is caused by humans, then that’s something that ought to be remedied. Now.

While few are “experts” who discuss topics like global warming and the role of human activity, that does not mean we are incapable of looking at the data (as opposed to media reports on the conclusions of people who talked to the scientists that wrote some of the conclusions) and through a little additional research, can make INFORMED opinions on the data.  You want to listen to the “experts” because you don’t feel qualified to make your own analysis, that is fine. Not everyone can make sense of the typical research article.  But make certain it is the experts you are listening to and not a bunch of (biased?) reports about the experts, written by others who have the same - or even lower - understanding of the basic science than you do. Especially when those who write said reports often include their own bias.

Also, do not assume anyone who disagrees with AGW thinks warming is also false. Nor should you assume that because I currently hold the opinion AGW is a political boogie man, that I started out that way, nor that I ONLY study data contrary to AGW theory. I do not dispute the Earth is in a warming trend.  I do not buy into the last couple years of atypical cold indicating the warming trend is false, or that is is “over with”. As I stated earlier (more than once) the Earth IS is a warming trend - and has been for well over 10,000 years.

The question is, does human activity make a significant, or even measurable, contribution to the phenomenon. Certainly human activity has the capability to have wide-spread, mostly negative effects on this planet.  That is not in dispute. At least not from myself or others like me.  What IS in dispute is whether human activity, especially those activities named as culprits - to wit the production of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gasses through the use of fossil fuels and other technology - are truly a factor in global warming.

From everything I have read, the answer is: most likely not.  The contrary data comes from many sources, to include paleobotonists whose studies dispute the figures for atmospheric CO2 concentration derived from ice core samples; paleoclimatic studies indicating the Earth has ben unusually cool for the past million or so years, planetary modeling techniques that indicate CO2 is not the forcer AGW claims it is, astronomical data indicating the oter planets are also in a warming cycle, with the figures for Earth not significantly higher when adjusted for solar flux, mean albedo, and other factors. Notice all of the above data supports global warming as an established phenomenon. So any data sets coming from AGW which claims the Earth is in a warming trend is supported by other studies.

However, the supporting data for AGW itself (human causes), if one looks closely, comes from a very narrow set of data, the vast majority of which centers around analysis of ice cores. The correlation between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures is well established. Paleobotanical analysis arrived at the same conclusions. But correlation does NOT indicate cause.  And THAT is where AGW, as a well founded theory, falls off the tracks.  YES, CO2 increases are associated with warmer temperatures.  YES, human activities dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. One would think, logically, that indicates human activities are cause - or at least contributing to an increase in mean global temperatures. But the hole in that conclusion is that CO2 is not proven to be a forcer in rising global temperatures. Data derived from most planetary models, as well as observed test, INCLUDING the ice cores AGW likes to refer to, points to CO2 increases as a SYMPTOM of global warming rather than a cause. According to laboratory experiments, CO2 ceases being a forcer in heat retention at concentrations well below pre-industrial levels. As such, until CO2 can be proven to be a forcer in global warming, all of AGW falls apart.

So, why not leave the conclusions to the REAL experts? The reason people like us are even discussing so esoteric a topic is because we are being expected to contribute to political/economic decisions BASED on the topic of global warming.  Do we throw a bunch of money/effort/resources in an attempt to diminish global warming?  Or do we use those resources to anticipate and prepare for the results of an observed phenomenon? Or, do we hide our heads in the sand and wish it away? It’s a sticky question, because the resources we will be expending we can ill afford to waste. Because we are supposed to contribute to political decisions revolving around this issue, then it behooves us to become, as much as reasonably possible, informed “amateurs” on the topic at least.

IMO, taking the “I’m not an expert, so I’ll go with the majority who are” is simply not good enough. The majority of experts have been wrong in numerous cases. The food pyramid comes to mind as the latest boondoggle of “consensus” science.  For decades we were told to follow the food pyramid for healthy eating. (The one with fats on top, and grains/cereals at the bottom) Along come a few who say “The food pyramid has too many carbs!” These dieticians - inventors of the South Beach diet, and specifically Dr. Atkins of the Atkins Diet fame, were ridiculed and demeaned by the scientific majority.  After all, lots of serious research had gone into the creation of the food pyramid. A few years later, and those who bucked the establishment have been shown to be right. And the food pyramid has been drastically modified to account for the new information.

The real problem with AGW is it is has been taken over - and corrupted - by politics. People with conflicting data are derided while those who agree are lauded - NOT in scientific circles, but rather political ones. And for research scientists, political circles very often do more to determine their continued ability to work than does the scientific arena. That atmosphere does not make for good scienc

Patronizing Dissembler MacCube here,

  I want to welcome Compute17. Welcome to The Mac Observer and welcome to this discussion. I completely agree with yours and Zewazir’s opinion on this matter. If the influence of humans on climate is in question, then why are liberal politicians pushing their Cap & Trade legislation so forcefully? If these people really are “The smartest kids in the room”, why push such damaging legislation? Could it be that, these same politicians that claim to have our ( the peoples ) best interest at heart, are only thinking of themselves and their own power? Could this whole debate only be like so many others before, where the politician cries that “the end is coming” and only I and my policies can save you from certain destruction. This legislation will be a disaster, just as all other liberal legislation has in the past. Except of course, for the politician.

“Ignore that man behind the curtain”