An article from the NY times highlights how today's media is lead by 'availability entrepreneurs' who selectively monitor the global for weather that highlights Global Warming. However in 2007, weather that contradicted doom predictions or the expected pattern was ignored.
quote:
Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.
A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”
When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.
When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm — by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades — the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).
Even the UK Observer is worried that the public are suffering "green fatigue" from such reporting that will only get worse in 2008. Chris West, head of the government-sponsored UK Climate Impacts Programme basically admits in the article that they need to get some bad weather disaster in 2008 to try to convince people that there is a problem.
quote:
A key factor will be the weather, said West. 'If we have a nice average year, whatever that means, people will say: "Climate change: what of it?" But if we have either an extreme heatwave or more flooding, I think there's going to be a cumulative effect. The next time we have a national-scale weather-related emergency, people will say: "Enough ... we can't allow this to be normal". In a way, if that happens, it makes our job easier, but clearly I don't want to wish a disaster on anyone.'
It just goes to show how local, or regional, weather can so easily be made to look like a global trend when it's nothing of the sort. The same thing is being done with 'recent trends' that don't have the 'advanced data' to confirm the 'trend'.
I've always said the media should not be regarded as a good source of information (about anything really). The media would like it if there were a uniform increase in temperature, storms, sea ice loss etc. everywhere. Complicated pictures cannot be expressed in headlines and they will cherry pick. So when a scientist said:
"This year has also seen sea-ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere below average in each month of 2007, with record minima sea-ice reported in July, August and September. In the Southern Hemisphere, sea-ice coverage has remained close to average."
What information doesn't come through a medium? At last we agree on something - it's why I called myself Son of Mulder - Trust No one!
By "the media" I mean journalists. I don't distrust them per se. But I don't expect them to fully understand the story, or give proper balance between their sensational headline and the likely reality.
Does Mulder trust Scully? And which is which? If I recall, the woman always considered the "paranormal" explanantion whereas the bloke always assumed there was a "rational" explanantion - but I only watched it a bit in its early days.
By "the media" I mean journalists. I don't distrust them per se. But I don't expect them to fully understand the story, or give proper balance between their sensational headline and the likely reality.
Does Mulder trust Scully? And which is which? If I recall, the woman always considered the "paranormal" explanantion whereas the bloke always assumed there was a "rational" explanantion - but I only watched it a bit in its early days.
Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) was the credulous one and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) was the sceptic. I stopped watching it after Mulder's inexplicable escape from the exploding railway carriage.
Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) was the credulous one and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) was the sceptic. I stopped watching it after Mulder's inexplicable escape from the exploding railway carriage.
It was only make believe TS .....shhh by the way, trust no one
Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) was the credulous one and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) was the sceptic. I stopped watching it after Mulder's inexplicable escape from the exploding railway carriage.
It was only make believe TS .....shhh by the way, trust no one
No! I thought it was all true.
It is annoying, though, when programme-makers cheat.
Yes, it looks like the southern hemisphere is mirroring the summer of the northern hemisphere (at least, almost). Give it a year or so and we'll both be back to the usual 'global warming' thing until the internal combustion engine is dealt with.
C4 Forums 
