BBC's biased reporting of Global Warming

[rambot]

I guess you're a genius in figuring out what people are thinking or reading now, huh? Is that the next challenge after global warming? You are blind since day one and not know it. You shamelessly looked the other way on the faux data and the incriminating emails, that is why there's no way you can ever be convinced. You think the weather is static annually? What about in 10 years? How about 100 years? Or 1000 years? Do you think CO2 is the cause the ending of the ice age? You probably don't even know that methane is 20 times worse than CO2 and it stays in the atmosphere much, much longer before dispersing into space. But you are soooo sure CO2 is THE cause when it stays in the atmosphere for a day or two vs. 20 days for methane. It only shows you're not objective and very narrow minded. If you're so sure global warming is man-made, then you're contributing to it every single day.

Oh great! New ideas to investigate!
Let's see:

The proponent of global warming:
* is blind to the truth
* ignores "faux" data (whatever that is)
* believes the weather NEVER changes
* is ignorant of the properties of methane and hasn't considered them
* Doesn't understand how long CO2 OR methane stays in the atmosphere
* is neither objective nor open minded

So, did you have any evidence to back any of this up?


* CO2 stays in the atmosphere 50-200 years (I heard a climate researcher indicate it was more like 1000 years).
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html
Methane, around 10 (so where you get 2 and 20 days is beyond laughable)

In fact:
Climate 411 » Greenhouse Gases: How Long Will They Last? - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund

SIDENOTE: Since the industrial revolution humans have WELL OVER doubled the amount of methane in the atmosphere.


* I've never claimed the weather is "static annually" and given your apoplexy over global warming I would have thought you understand it enough that nobody is claiming that anywhere. Claims are in trends; and trends relative to temperature forcings. Look at trends (do I REALLY need to bring up graphs...)

* I can DEFINITELY be convinced that global warming is a sham. I just need to see a solid downward trend in global temperatures. Or, if someone could provide a decent alternative theory to the greenhouse effect, I am ALLLL ears!
Can YOU be convinced that ACC is real? What would it take?

* I do contribute to global warming, every single day. Just like when I send paint down my drains, I contribute to the dirtying of our local river.

* There was demonstrative evidence that the article hadn't been written as the poster claimed something that that particular scientist didn't say. So again, either the poster is lying, or didn't read the article...well.


Also, here we see the denialists dance again: The earth isn't warming (evidence given to demonstrate the opposite). Unsupported claims of bad science (requests for "good science"). The earth is warming but because of x/y/z we can't/shouldn't bother doing anything about it.

"The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias."

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Just a quick reminder that if you want to debate the science, then don't complain about the "lacklustre" reporting of the science and stay focussed on the science itself.



ps...I don't really send paint down the drains...

 

[Greatcloud]

Well rambot what do you say to this statement by DR. Roy Spencer:

Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

 

[michael32]

I thought it had been framed in terms of, "mankind is screwing up the planet, how about we stop screwing it up and do what we can to reverse the damage we've done?". What do you regard as "apocalyptic terms"? Why do you regard framing the AGW issue in such terms as the domain of "over zealous environmentalists and biased news organisations"? What about the non-zealous environmentalist and the non-biased news organisations? What about the climate scientists? Are they being apocalyptic?



What exactly does liberal bias (or lack thereof) have to do with accurate reporting on issues of climate change?

David.

You know...this is like wandering into the psych ward by accident. Do you people actuallly exist in the real world?

 

[rambot]

Well rambot what do you say to this statement by DR. Roy Spencer:

Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

1) I didn't think it was possible to prove a negative.
So perhaps my question to the Doc is, "Show me the peer reviewed paper that indicates that the recent warming is due to internal climate cycles exclusively"

2) After reading through the comments on his website I noted that in his first reply, he states that "you can't blame solar output because the sun is external" (paraphrase). Okay, well the sun drives all the whole global climate cycles so how can this not just lead to reductionist "well that's because of the sun" type arguments?

 

[Skaloop]

You know...this is like wandering into the psych ward by accident. Do you people actuallly exist in the real world?

One cannot wander into a psych ward accidentally. If you find yourself wandering into a psych ward accidentally, that means you've been committed to a psych ward but just don't know it yet.

 

[michael32]

One cannot wander into a psych ward accidentally. If you find yourself wandering into a psych ward accidentally, that means you've been committed to a psych ward but just don't know it yet.

Nope. Nice try, but narrow minded thinking.

Just evaluating the hospital for architectural renovations,...and guess what I find? Liberalism central, and everyone off his Thorazine.

 

[Gishin]

At least give us the benefit of the doubt that we can disagree and still be sane.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

CO2 stays in the atmosphere 50-200 years (I heard a climate researcher indicate it was more like 1000 years).
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
Methane, around 10 (so where you get 2 and 20 days is beyond laughable)

Both the figures you quote for CO2 are more or less accurate. An individual molecule of CO2 actually won't stay in the atmosphere very long at all. About 5 years (which is a little different than 2 days) is all that it sticks around. They get absorbed by the ocean and terrestrial biomass. The increased concentration sticks around a lot longer though (because the ocean is releasing just about as much CO2 as it absorbs). ~3/4 of the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will end up in the oceans over the next 50-200 years. There's a lot of poorly understood variables here (how quickly does the ocean uptake the additional CO2?), so it's not entirely certain. The remaining 1/4 of the CO2 released into the atmosphere doesn't end up in the ocean (because the ocean and atmosphere reach equilibrium). It has to be scrubbed from the atmosphere via geological processes that happen on geological timescales. 1000 years gives you a pretty good idea of how slowly those geological processes work, though it could take significantly longer than that.

 

[David Brider]

You know...this is like wandering into the psych ward by accident. Do you people actuallly exist in the real world?

Yes. Definitely not the psych ward, though.

Now we've got that out of the way, if you feel like answering the questions I asked you, that would be great. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. I think the very last question I asked you could be the most helpful in that respect. Just to run it by you again:

What exactly does liberal bias (or lack thereof) have to do with accurate reporting on issues of climate change?

David.

 

[jsn112]

Oh great! New ideas to investigate!
Let's see:

The proponent of global warming:
* is blind to the truth
* ignores "faux" data (whatever that is)
* believes the weather NEVER changes
* is ignorant of the properties of methane and hasn't considered them
* Doesn't understand how long CO2 OR methane stays in the atmosphere
* is neither objective nor open minded

So, did you have any evidence to back any of this up?


* CO2 stays in the atmosphere 50-200 years (I heard a climate researcher indicate it was more like 1000 years).
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
Methane, around 10 (so where you get 2 and 20 days is beyond laughable)

In fact:
Climate 411 » Greenhouse Gases: How Long Will They Last? - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund

SIDENOTE: Since the industrial revolution humans have WELL OVER doubled the amount of methane in the atmosphere.


* I've never claimed the weather is "static annually" and given your apoplexy over global warming I would have thought you understand it enough that nobody is claiming that anywhere. Claims are in trends; and trends relative to temperature forcings. Look at trends (do I REALLY need to bring up graphs...)

* I can DEFINITELY be convinced that global warming is a sham. I just need to see a solid downward trend in global temperatures. Or, if someone could provide a decent alternative theory to the greenhouse effect, I am ALLLL ears!
Can YOU be convinced that ACC is real? What would it take?

* I do contribute to global warming, every single day. Just like when I send paint down my drains, I contribute to the dirtying of our local river.

* There was demonstrative evidence that the article hadn't been written as the poster claimed something that that particular scientist didn't say. So again, either the poster is lying, or didn't read the article...well.


Also, here we see the denialists dance again: The earth isn't warming (evidence given to demonstrate the opposite). Unsupported claims of bad science (requests for "good science"). The earth is warming but because of x/y/z we can't/shouldn't bother doing anything about it.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Just a quick reminder that if you want to debate the science, then don't complain about the "lacklustre" reporting of the science and stay focussed on the science itself.



ps...I don't really send paint down the drains...

Let's see...

...If the outside temperature is too hot---> it's global warming...
...If the outside temperature is too cold---> it's global warming...
...There's too much snow---> it's global warming...
...There's too little snow---> it's global warming...
...There's too much rain---> it's global warming...
...There's too little rain---> it's global warming...
...There's too many tornadoes/hurricanes---> it's global warming...
...There's too few tornadoes/hurricanes---> silence...
...There's too many earthquakes---> (global warming scientists are still trying to make a connection. So stay tune.)

There you have it. Global warming "experts" are never wrong.

 

[JustMeSee]

Good link.

But you're wasting your time if you think any of the global warming cult worshippers are going to pay attention. Anything that goes against their worldview just HAS to be not only wrong, but the product of EVIL flat earthers.

Are you aware that insulting comments like this turn people off?
I watched the video.

 

[mzungu]

Let's see...

...If the outside temperature is too hot---> it's global warming...
...If the outside temperature is too cold---> it's global warming...
...There's too much snow---> it's global warming...
...There's too little snow---> it's global warming...
...There's too much rain---> it's global warming...
...There's too little rain---> it's global warming...
...There's too many tornadoes/hurricanes---> it's global warming...
...There's too few tornadoes/hurricanes---> silence...
...There's too many earthquakes---> (global warming scientists are still trying to make a connection. So stay tune.)

There you have it. Global warming "experts" are never wrong.

Ignorance is the problem here: Global warming has to do with CLIMATE change and NOT the WEATHER.

The Climate is not the same as the weather.

Your post does nothing but insult erudition!

 

[Supreme]

Ignorance is the problem here: Global warming has to do with CLIMATE change and NOT the WEATHER.

The Climate is not the same as the weather.

Your post does nothing but insult erudition!

Yep. Climate change is a very real phenomenom when looked at in the context of the last few decades. A bit of snow does not prove that climate change isn't real. The climate is certainly not the same as the weather.

 

[rambot]

Let's see...

...If the outside temperature is too hot---> it's global warming...
...If the outside temperature is too cold---> it's global warming...
...There's too much snow---> it's global warming...
...There's too little snow---> it's global warming...
...There's too much rain---> it's global warming...
...There's too little rain---> it's global warming...
...There's too many tornadoes/hurricanes---> it's global warming...
...There's too few tornadoes/hurricanes---> silence...
...There's too many earthquakes---> (global warming scientists are still trying to make a connection. So stay tune.)

There you have it. Global warming "experts" are never wrong.

First, why are posting this when it has absolutely nothing to do with my reply? This argument does seem to be your "go to canard" but I want to think there is something more layered to it than that.

Second,
From The Art of War:
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

So when it comes to the discussion and debate surrounding global warming, in which camp would you put yourself jsn?

 

[jsn112]

Ignorance is the problem here: Global warming has to do with CLIMATE change and NOT the WEATHER.

The Climate is not the same as the weather.

Your post does nothing but insult erudition!

Right.... First, it was the global cooling. Then, it was global warming. Oops... now it's climate change. To make things even more complicated-- "global warming has nothing to do with weather." When will you ever make up your mind?

 

[jsn112]

First, why are posting this when it has absolutely nothing to do with my reply? This argument does seem to be your "go to canard" but I want to think there is something more layered to it than that.

Second,
From The Art of War:
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

So when it comes to the discussion and debate surrounding global warming, in which camp would you put yourself jsn?

Because it's dumb to argue pseudo science that is global warming. It's disgusting that you global warming or global cooling or climate change or whatever you want to call it nowadays advocates are using it to subjugate the mass. I proposed last year that if the increased trend in global temperature about 1 degree every year (or whatever many year), then would you agree that in 10 or 20 or 30 years the global temperature would be increased by 5 or 10 or higher degrees? Now, that's hard core evidence. Otherwise, 1 degree is a sneeze; whereas, 5-10 degrees is a full blown case sickness. Global warming scientists have been hanging their hats on this 1 degree for the last 5 or so years. According to your charts, I want to see 2 or three degrees increase in this summer. That's not hard to ask, is it?

 

[Greatcloud]

Right now the planet is cooling ,this La Nina may last several years.

 

[Drekkan85]

And yet if you look at the trend line of all those points you'd notice a fairly decent upwards slope by taking midpoints (eyeballing it, starting from about -.2 in 1979 and going to about +.25 in 2010 - that's about a change of nearly half a degree in 20 years).

As for that arrow, so what? In 1984 there was a point that was at -.6. In 1993 there was one nearly at -.5.

A single point along a graph like this, particularly one with multiple data points per year crunched into a 30 year graph, isn't particularly pursuasive. You have to show that the red line is going to head down, and permanantly down. If that point represents the "low" similar to the lows of 1985 and 1993 then we have a MASSIVE problem.

Why? Then the absolute low of lows has moved from being a -.6 to a 0. That's a HUGE increase in the minimums.

Thank you GreatCloud - you've proven our point. AGW is very, very real.

 

[DaisyDay]

Right now the planet is cooling ,this La Nina may last several years.

Your graph shows an overall upward trend. Do you think that proves your point or disputes it?

 

[Greatcloud]

This minimum we are in has only just begun and may last several years. It could very well signal the end of GW. We will have to keep an eye on it as I just said it has only just begun. We can only hope that the global warming trend is about to be ending. This could be very significant.