BBC's biased reporting of Global Warming

[michael32]

I just have a couple of quick questions for the global warming deniers.

1) Do you deny that CO2 contributes the the greenhouse effect?
2) Do you deny that atmospheric CO2 levels are increased due to human impacts through the burning of fossil fuels and other activities?

Don't confuse global warming DENIERS with those of us who trust science but don't think the AGW science is settled. Our concern is not with the science, but with what environmentalists push for as political and econmomic solutions.

 

[mzungu]

Your comment confirms my experience in Europe precisely. Europeans, and particularly Brits, think they know all about America, and, in reality, could not be more ignorant. But they are very sure of themselves!

Well considering that the USA has overly advertised her way of life through the media (especially the film industry) to such a point that many people who have never been to America will almost feel straight at home if they go there since many landmarks and the American way of life is familiar to them.

I cannot honestly say the same about the Americans. This does not mean they are stupid. It just means that isolationism is more the norm than the exception to most Americans.

Now Y'all go and have a nice day there

 

[michael32]

Well considering that the USA has overly advertised her way of life through the media (especially the film industry) to such a point that many people who have never been to America will almost feel straight at home if they go there since many landmarks and the American way of life is familiar to them.

I cannot honestly say the same about the Americans. This does not mean they are stupid. It just means that isolationism is more the norm than the exception to most Americans.

Now Y'all go and have a nice day there

Don't use Hollyood as a source of information about America.

I've traveled quite bit though Europe. Believe me, your average European knows NOTHING about America.

Y'all come back now. Bless your little heart!

 

[mzungu]

Don't use Hollyood as a source of information about America.

I've traveled quite bit though Europe. Believe me, your average European knows NOTHING about America.

Y'all come back now. Bless your little heart!

I practically know the big apple inside out! Pay my ticket and I promise to give you a tour even though the closest I ever got to NY was Oregon in the early 80s (man that place must have more hippies and Lesbians than all the rest of the planet put together)

Besides my Dawg is better looking than your IAF F-16 (is that the I ?)

 

[michael32]

I practically know the big apple inside out! Pay my ticket and I promise to give you a tour even though the closest I ever got to NY was Oregon in the early 80s (man that place must have more hippies and Lesbians than all the rest of the planet put together)

Besides my Dawg is better looking than your IAF F-16 (is that the I ?)

I have my permanent residence just a couple of hours from NYC, and an apartment in Manhatten. But I would love to have you show me around. Let me know when you're here, and we'll have fun in the city.

Parts of Oregon are still a little alternative.

 

[mzungu]

I have my permanent residence just a couple of hours from NYC, and an apartment in Manhatten. But I would love to have you show me around. Let me know when you're here, and we'll have fun in the city.

Parts of Oregon are still a little alternative.

You actually believed me when I said I knew NY inside out? I was joking! But I REALLY want to visit the Smithsonian and NASA.

For one to experience America one must spend at least 5 years roaming the place.

I thoroughly enjoyed my stay there and honestly did not find anything that was alien to me. The customs, Food, Heck they even drive on the right side of the road there, The only thing I found disturbing over there was the fundamentalism in Religion! Boy Am I glad we (Europe) got rid of all those fanatics back then!

Otherwise with the exception of religion, guns, Puritanism, and too much money worship, I think America is a great place!

 

[michael32]

Otherwise with the exception of religion, guns, Puritanism, and too much money worship, I think America is a great place!

Except for those little things, huh!

Actually, you're right about the Smithsonian. It's huge, and wonderful to explore. Our cities have wonderful museums and art gallerys to prowl around. I have a particular fondness for the Frick in NYC.

 

[imind]

Don't confuse global warming DENIERS with those of us who trust science but don't think the AGW science is settled. Our concern is not with the science, but with what environmentalists push for as political and econmomic solutions.

how is the AGW science not settled? what do you have arguments with? please be specific...

please also answer the 2 questions asked of you...

 

[rambot]

When will I be able to water ski at the North Pole? If that happens, it means I can buy an ocean front property, right? Please tell me when. I was told that snow will be a thing in the past starting the year 2000. That didn't happen. Please tell me when...please pretty pleaassseeee... that there is a global warming and the poles' ice will melt and LA, NY, NO, etc. will be underwater leaving new shorelines. I can't wait. I hope global warming scientists are right. I'm going to start saving up right now.

Note: I'm not actually making that claim. I'm using the exaggerated claim to illustrate a point....
You realize that though right?

Why don't you tell that to Dr. David Viner, a senior research "scientist" at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, about the snow thing and "reeks" of unscientific speculation.

It's a shame you didn't really read the article (which speaks to a CLEAr trend in GW). If you had, you'd realize that the scientist doesn't really say what the article title states. If the scientist (and more importantly, the journalist) wouldn't have had to pander to the readership, we could have seen something akin to scientific information being put forward.
Also, given how Brits have bellyached about snow storms in recent years, I found this quote to be disturbingly accurate:

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

Michael:

Don't confuse global warming DENIERS with those of us who trust science but don't think the AGW science is settled.

Interesting sentiment. Where do you still see potential holes in the ACC "story" and what kind of evidence would you need to see to be convinced?

 

[michael32]

how is the AGW science not settled? what do you have arguments with? please be specific...

There are well qualified, well respected scientists who disagree.

The Climate Science Isn't Settled: Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted. -- Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

please also answer the 2 questions asked of you...

No, I'm not going to answer the questions. I've already made it clear that they are irrelevant to my position. I'm not an AGW DENIER, I just recognize that the science isn't settled.

 

[rambot]

There are well qualified, well respected scientists who disagree.

The Climate Science Isn't Settled: Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted. -- Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Yes but, as Willer has pointed out, that is simply not having an informed opinion of your own. You wrote:
"Don't confuse global warming DENIERS with those of us who trust science but don't think the AGW science is settled."
That suggests to me that you share that opinion and, have your own reasons to question it. So what are your reasons (not a scientist's)

No, I'm not going to answer the questions. I've already made it clear that they are irrelevant to my position.

 

[Gishin]

I seriously doubt if the Yanks even know what the BBC stands for and how its track record speaks for itself. BBC documentaries are not only unbiased but are well researched and extremely well made. If one word comes to mind when I hear the name BBC; It is "QUALITY"

British Broadcasting Company, commercial free due to the revenue generated from the TV Tax.

I lived in England for 2 years.

 

[michael32]

Yes but, as Willer has pointed out, that is simply not having an informed opinion of your own. You wrote:
"Don't confuse global warming DENIERS with those of us who trust science but don't think the AGW science is settled."
That suggests to me that you share that opinion and, have your own reasons to question it. So what are your reasons (not a scientist's)

No, I'm not going to answer the questions. I've already made it clear that they are irrelevant to my position.

I don't speak for Willer, and he doesn't speak for me. I completely reject the idea that saying scientific debate should continue is an uninformed opinion. My position has been made clear, and I don't owe you anything more than that.

I've tried to make it clear to you before- yet you seem incapable of understanding- that I don't care how the science ends up. I do care about the political and economic penalties you and other AGW believers insist must be imposed on us. I will do everyting in my power to prevent you from imposing such policies.

Considering the extraordinarily weak outcome of the most recent global climate summit in Cancun, I suspect your side's efforts to have political elites micro-manage the world's economies is running out of time anyway.

 

[rambot]

I don't speak for Willer, and he doesn't speak for me. I completely reject the idea that saying scientific debate should continue is an uninformed opinion. My position has been made clear, and I don't owe you anything more than that.

Your position has been made clear michael. I'm not denying that. But I am taking exception that you are refusing to SUPPORT your position with your own words and arguments. And you're right, you don't "owe" me anything at ALL.

I've tried to make it clear to you before- yet you seem incapable of understanding- that I don't care how the science ends up. I do care about the political and economic penalties you and other AGW believers insist must be imposed on us. I will do everyting in my power to prevent you from imposing such policies.

So there would be no difference in position for you whether ACC is not occurring at all and the science is a sham and weather there is actual imminent catastrophe?
The only thing you want to protest is whatever regulations, taxations, and diabolical world domination plans currently in place.

Considering the extraordinarily weak outcome of the most recent global climate summit in Cancun, I suspect your side's efforts to have political elites micro-manage the world's economies is running out of time anyway.

Given the utter failure of environmentalists at political summits like this (and almost all others), one wonder's why skeptics continue to speak of some "rogue socialist government power grab". Don't you get it, environmentalists have almost NO say in how things get done. It's still your almighty dollar that dictates action; it's all still good.

 

[michael32]

Your position has been made clear michael. I'm not denying that. But I am taking exception that you are refusing to SUPPORT your position with your own words and arguments. And you're right, you don't "owe" me anything at ALL.

I honestly don't know what else to say. My position is that I trust science, but don't think that the science of global warming is settled. What kind of support for that position do you want? You seem to want me to try to prove your science wrong, and I'm not going to do that.

So there would be no difference in position for you whether ACC is not occurring at all and the science is a sham and weather there is actual imminent catastrophe?
The only thing you want to protest is whatever regulations, taxations, and diabolical world domination plans currently in place.

Perhaps I've been hyperbolic in my statements, but I don't think hyperbole is unexpected in such forums as this. I'm not actually accused you or anyone else of being "diabolical." I'm sure you feel you're correct and that it's urgent to take measures to offset the damage of AGW. I disagree. I'm old enough to have seen lots of people - especially environmentalists - crying wolf and demanding the government do something, only to have the impending disaster prove to be an illusion. I don't trust the government to be able to do much right.

Given the utter failure of environmentalists at political summits like this (and almost all others), one wonder's why skeptics continue to speak of some "rogue socialist government power grab". Don't you get it, environmentalists have almost NO say in how things get done. It's still your almighty dollar that dictates action; it's all still good.

Ok, ok, there is no "rogue socialist government power grab." There are just people with different opinions. And I can understand how you probably feel frustrated in not being able to get the world to take more seriously what you see as potential catastrophe. But my opinion is that governments have made such a botch of so much, that I think there is more danger in government action than inaction. I have greater confidence that improved science and technologies have a better chance of offsetting, or more likely finding ways to deal with, any climate change than anything politicians can do. Governments have an abominable record of making bad situations worse.

That's probably the best I can do to explain/support my position.

 

[mzungu]

British Broadcasting Company, commercial free due to the revenue generated from the TV Tax.

I lived in England for 2 years.

 

[Greatcloud]

Man caused Global Whinning should be outlawed.

 

[rambot]

I honestly don't know what else to say. My position is that I trust science, but don't think that the science of global warming is settled. What kind of support for that position do you want? You seem to want me to try to prove your science wrong, and I'm not going to do that.

If you don't believe it's settled, you must have certain concerns that are not being met; some lingering questions. I'm just curious about what those are.

Perhaps I've been hyperbolic in my statements, but I don't think hyperbole is unexpected in such forums as this. I'm not actually accused you or anyone else of being "diabolical." I'm sure you feel you're correct and that it's urgent to take measures to offset the damage of AGW. I disagree. I'm old enough to have seen lots of people - especially environmentalists - crying wolf and demanding the government do something, only to have the impending disaster prove to be an illusion. I don't trust the government to be able to do much right.

Like which examples can you think of? The two that are popping up in my head are reducing CFCs and taking steps to reduce impact on the ozone.
And perhaps DDT reduction.
What are more examples?

Ok, ok, there is no "rogue socialist government power grab." There are just people with different opinions. And I can understand how you probably feel frustrated in not being able to get the world to take more seriously what you see as potential catastrophe. But my opinion is that governments have made such a botch of so much, that I think there is more danger in government action than inaction. I have greater confidence that improved science and technologies have a better chance of offsetting, or more likely finding ways to deal with, any climate change than anything politicians can do. Governments have an abominable record of making bad situations worse.

That's probably the best I can do to explain/support my position.

I don't see GW as a catastrophe. That implies a single event. I see a very very slow decent into a much more difficult life for my children and grandchildren etc. That's why I argue and support what I do.

While I would say i may trust government a bit TOO much, I do not trust business or markets at ALL. If someone HAS to have power, I want to have a say in how someone is speaking for me (and who they are). I've emailed my MP on several occasions about somewhat recent events.

 

[michael32]

If you don't believe it's settled, you must have certain concerns that are not being met; some lingering questions. I'm just curious about what those are.

Like which examples can you think of? The two that are popping up in my head are reducing CFCs and taking steps to reduce impact on the ozone.
And perhaps DDT reduction.
What are more examples?

This has to be a quick response, maybe I can elaborate more at another time.

I think CFC regulation was probably appropriate.

I think banning of DDT was a mixed bag. There is still nothing more effective for control of malaria carrying mosquitos than DDT. This is a trade off of environment and human life that I'm not sure everyone in Africa is happy with.

The example I think of that is of very immediate concern, is the federal regulations of nuclear power use that essential killing the industry. Now we have to reconsider nuclear power as one source of alternative energy.

 

[Louis Cyphere]

None of this foolish debate will matter when the impending total economic collapse happens. Society as you know it will come to an end and billions will die in the fire. You will be killing your neighbors over canned goods and the internet will only be a useless memory in the fight for survival. I only pray the Lord will forgive us for what we will have to do to survive and procreate.