Safe Speed Forums

No mention of it in the national press. So all they hysteria about the ice caps melting last year was all do to a natural weather event.

I think we should all write to the press demanding that this latest news be given the same coverage as the original misrepresentation of the facts as a form of retraction.

But then "ordinary" weather does not seem to be newsworthy does it!

Extreme winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year — including snow in Baghdad and returning sea ice in the Arctic — have prompted a predictable “told-you-so” response from climate skeptics: “See? The Earth is actually cooling.”

Not so fast, say many scientists. Climate isn’t short-term weather — it’s the long view. “The current downturn is not very unusual,” said Carl Mears, a climate scientist who tracks satellite temperature data. He points out that, despite similar cold spots in 1988, 1991-92 and 1998, the long-term trend continued to be higher global temperatures.

“Climate skeptics typically take a few small pieces of the puzzle to debunk global warming, and ignore the whole picture that the larger science community sees by looking at all the pieces,” said another climate scientist, Ignatius G. Rigor of the University of Washington.

In short, don’t be misled by the global-cooling hype.

Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

Climate Dissent Grows Hotter:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do0902.xml

Not exactly headline news...but it is a start.

I think we should start a campaign to prevent Global Cooling.....

The ABD had better wake up and start using this information.

Reporters feel the heat over climate change

Ofcom is about to deliver its crucial report on the Channel 4 programme that upset climate experts. Bob Ward examines how science and journalism can misunderstand each other

It is now just over a year since the controversial programme The Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast on Channel 4, but there has been no cooling in the relationship between scientists and the media. Ofcom is deliberating on whether the programme breached its code, and its upcoming verdict could have far-reaching implications for the media's coverage of climate change and other scientific issues.


The programme, produced by Martin Durkin and his company WAGtv, claimed that climate scientists had been engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to dupe the public and politicians into thinking that global warming is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Instead, changes in the sun's activity should be blamed for the rise in global average temperature over the past century, the programme argued.

Loud protests followed the initial broadcast on 8 March 2007 – and its repeat on More 4 – with more than 200 complaints submitted to Ofcom. Channel 4 attempted to defend the programme by calling it a "polemic" and asserting the public's right to hear from minority views.

Scientists alleged that the programme had systematically misrepresented the research and evidence on climate change, and had only featured interviews with a fringe group of dissenting figures who did not agree with the overwhelming majority of researchers in the field. Two researchers were so outraged that they took the unprecedented step of writing a scientific paper for a leading scientific journal to explicitly rebut the TV programme's central claim about the role of the Sun.

Ofcom is due to rule on the programme in the next few weeks, but it has focused attention on how climate change is covered in parts of the national media.

The BBC, in particular, has been tying itself in knots since Jeremy Paxman alleged in an article in its in-house magazine, Ariel, last February, that the corporation had "abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago". In June, the BBC Trust said in a report on impartiality that the corporation should allow "dissenters" on the issue to be heard because "it is not the BBC's role to close down this debate".

At the end of August, the BBC was accused by rival broadcasters at the Edinburgh International Television Festival of having a "line" on climate change, namely that global warming was caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News at the BBC, seemed to agree, attacking the corporation's plans for "Planet Relief", a day of programming to raise consciousness about the issue. "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it," said Horrocks. A month later, Planet Relief was cancelled.

Some politicians have increased the pressure on the BBC. In October, John Redwood, a senior Tory MP, attacked the Today programme in his blog for its coverage of a new scientific study, accusing the BBC of being "relentless in their insistence on climate change theory".

The controversy appears to expose a fundamental mismatch between the values of the media and scientists. On the one hand, journalists seek impartiality and balance, being used to the idea that all issues consist essentially of different viewpoints and opinions, and that what is right or wrong depends on perception. The media seeks to present two sides of an argument, and let the public decide what to believe.

On the other hand, scientists value accuracy, having been taught that different views should be assessed according to the evidence that supports them, rather than on the vehemence with which they are held. Researchers seek to present an objective view of the weight of evidence to inform the public.

The scientists point out that their understanding of climate change has developed, as in other subjects, through rational consensus – the accumulation of collective opinion in support of an accepted interpretation of the available evidence. The rational consensus on climate change is that warming of the Earth is unequivocal and very likely due to greenhouse-gas emissions and other human activities.

The existence of a consensus does not mean that there is absolute certainty or unanimity among researchers. But it is based on a large body of evidence that has been documented in many thousands of scientific papers over the past few decades. Almost none of these papers, far less than a fraction of one per cent of the total, has diverged from the consensus.

The BBC Trust report on impartiality acknowledged that "the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus".

But it also suggested a "guiding principle" should be that "impartiality is about breadth of view and can be breached by omission", declaring that, on climate change and other issues, "as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space".

So the BBC continues to provide a platform for dissenting viewpoints on climate-change science, even if they are not supported by evidence, arguing that it is a demonstration of the corporation's impartiality. The Great Global Warming Swindle followed the same principle by basing its entire narrative around the views of the dissenters. However, such demonstrations of balance and impartiality appear to be misleading the public. According to an Ipsos MORI opinion poll last summer, 56 per cent of people mistakenly tended to agree or strongly agree with the statement that "many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change".

Of course, broadcasters do not deserve all of the blame for the public being misled about the weight of scientific opinion on the causes of climate change. The Daily Mail has published many opinion pieces suggesting that climate-change science is wrong, or even an anti-American conspiracy, and The Sunday Telegraph includes attacks by its columnists on the rational consensus almost every week.

Journalists understandably feel they should seek balance and impartiality in their reporting. But scientists will remain frustrated by this approach as long as it appears to undermine the accuracy of the media coverage of climate-change science.

The media seeks to present two sides of an argument, and let the public decide what to believe.