Little Greta comes clean

[oxmixmudd]

Anti-climate change sites are catering to a niche audience, not the broad public. Climate scientists need government funding, so it's in their best interest to keep the fearmongering as widespread as possible among the general public. It's even better if you have an MSM, that makes its own profits off clickbait articles, unwittingly serving your purpose.

That's not what climate scientists, or scientists in general do. They do research and they publish papers after review that make public that research. The vast majority of them dont sit around making up fake data for any reason, let alone so they can make people afraid, and those that do make up fake data dont typically last long after. If their research discovers something that makes some people afraid, then that is because what was discovered makes some people afraid.

Science is a human endeavor, so it is not perfect, nevertheless it is a rigorous, objective process that leads to understanding and knowledge about our world.

[seanD]

That's not what climate scientists, or scientists in general do. They do research and they publish papers after review that make public that research. The vast majority of them dont sit around making up fake data for any reason, let alone so they can make people afraid, and those that do make up fake data dont typically last long after. If their research discovers something that makes some people afraid, then that is because what was discovered makes some people afraid.

Science is a human endeavor, so it is not perfect, nevertheless it is a rigorous, objective process that leads to understanding and knowledge about our world.

I didn't say scientists are making up fake data. That wasn't even the discussion. You said media outlets overhype things -- your words -- which apparently was your explanation for why predictions over the years have failed. The response was, then they should correct that error. My response was the error (fearmongering) works in their favor. And here we are.

[MaxVel]

Such comments are not helpful, but are mor accurately aimed at the sources of disinformation on the topic eng. Wattsup. The solution is to stop mocking what is not really understood and take the time to learn about it before making snide comments that ultimately reveal more about what a person doesn't know than what they do know.

Interesting that SeanD's comments are "snide", and "mocking".

[oxmixmudd]

Interesting that SeanD's comments are "snide", and "mocking".

Yes,

They love the public attention. More fearmongering means more funding and job security.

As a commentary on carefully done government agency reports based on solid science is 'Snide and mocking' of that same science and research.

[oxmixmudd]

I didn't say scientists are making up fake data. That wasn't even the discussion. You said media outlets overhype things -- your words -- which apparently was your explanation for why predictions over the years have failed. The response was, then they should correct that error. My response was the error (fearmongering) works in their favor. And here we are.

No, that was my explanation for wild eyed insane predictions by the media that have little correlation with the actual scientific research and simulations. The actual projections have not failed in the scientific sense. They have been overall rather accurate, if perhaps in some cases too conservative.

[MaxVel]

One thing that concerns me about the discussion of AGW is that the role of the Sun doesn't seem to come up. Apparently the IPCC consensus is that it's role is minimal.

But there are some views that propose a much more significant role.


Basically, there is evidence that the Sun's effect on climate is substantial, and more than just the variation in energy delivered by direct solar radiance (TSI). Several possible mechanisms are proposed and compared. Problems are that we can't really predict the future activity of the Sun (although it seems we are heading into a possibly large solar minimum), and we don't really have data for the possible range of TSI variance.




also

Climate science in general is, at present, highly politicised, with many special interests
involved. It should therefore be no surprise that the above conclusion on the role of the Sun
in climate is strongly disputed. The core problem is that if the Sun has had a large influence
over the Holocene period, then it should also have had a significant influence in the 20th
century warming, with the consequence that the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide would
be on the low side. The observed decline in solar activity would then also be responsible for
the observed slowing of warming in recent years.

That's basically my concern - we are not putting enough effort into understanding the Sun and how it impacts our climate. We've committed to CO2 as the main factor, but it's possible that it's not. Our best efforts into reduce carbon emissions may be futile in minimising climate change, if the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as we think, and may actually be the wrong thing (if we are heading into a cooling phase due to Sun activity).

[MaxVel]

Yes,




As a commentary on carefully done government agency reports based on solid science is 'Snide and mocking' of that same science and research.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree completely. SeanD's comments are about media outlet reporting (which the media outlets should correct).

Scientists may or may not push for corrections to false reports, some may not because they have jobs and funding to consider; others because they don't have enough influence, others because they don't want to push back against the popular narrative - 'consensus' vs 'deniers'.

[oxmixmudd]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree completely. SeanD's comments are about media outlet reporting (which the media outlets should correct).

Scientists may or may not push for corrections to false reports, some may not because they have jobs and funding to consider; others because they don't have enough influence, others because they don't want to push back against the popular narrative - 'consensus' vs 'deniers'.

I'd have no idea why or why not. The assumption is there was not any push back, which I would doubt if the reports were way off. We'd really need to look at individual cases and how the were produced, what the underlying data was, and what if any corrections were issued from the news outlet or the scientists whose research was used as a basis for the media report.

[MaxVel]

I'd have no idea why or why not. The assumption is there was not any push back, which I would doubt if the reports were way off. We'd really need to look at individual cases and how the were produced, what the underlying data was, and what if any corrections were issued from the news outlet or the scientists whose research was used as a basis for the media report.

My summary:-

(1) MSM reports of climate / environment alarms, deadlines, etc. Predictions of bad things happening by .... unless we ...

This goes back to the 70s, at least, I think, with warnings of the coming Ice Age, global starvation by 2000 etc. But there have been plenty of similar things since then. Holes in the ozone layer, Global warming - now climate change. etc


(2) The predictions fail to come true, or are nowhere near as severe as warned


(3) MSM doesn't put out much on 'how we got it wrong' but moves to the latest scare.


Result: People are skeptical of the latest scare, and reluctant to believe published reports. This seeps over into skepticism of the science and scientists as well.


I know that MSM reports can and do promote falsehoods or just wrong stuff, due to reporter's ignorance/sloppiness/desire for a headline rather than balance. I've seen reports in areas I have some expertise in that contain blatant factual mistakes (calling a bacteria a virus is one example).

Scientists / experts regularly get misreported and misrepresented in the MSM. The MSM wants sensation, clickbait headlines etc. Not a measured, balanced report of the latest research, with suitable caveats about the limitations of what we can conclude from it. That doesn't sell.

However, scientists and associated people don't help by going along (to whatever degree they individually do) with the media narrative. They tend to be naive about the media agenda, and don't mount a concerted pushback when things that are wrong get put out there.

There is probably a degree of self interest to this, too. Sensational headlines that urge governments to 'take urgent action' in an area that you research in aren't likely to lead to a cut in your research funding and grant opportunities, are they? Speaking up will be unpopular, possibly fatal to your career prospects and thus your chances of finding our what's really going on with the climate, and your resistance likely won't even get heard outside a specialist community. Big price to pay for principle.

[Starlight]

Anti-climate change sites are catering to a niche audience, not the broad public. Climate scientists need government funding, so it's in their best interest to keep the fearmongering as widespread as possible among the general public. It's even better if you have an MSM, that makes its own profits off clickbait articles, unwittingly serving your purpose.

Speaking as a scientist myself (not a climate-change scientist), this idea makes no sense at all. Science funding and scientific incentives just doesn't work that way.

The idea that one small branch of science would invent a world-wide conspiracy theory ("climate change") in order to get more funding for themselves, and then deliberately try to perpetuate this internationally over the decades as a funding gravy-train might sound plausible to someone who's never been involved in doing science. But it sounds completely implausible and completely insane to me, and no scientists I've ever talked to or heard from have held a different view on this. It just makes no sense given the actual incentives and structures in science research.

What does make sense given the incentives and structures in science research, is that a small number of private companies (tobacco companies, oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies) might pay a very small number of scientists to produce a few very biased papers that say "tobacco is fine, smoking totally doesn't cause cancer", "this company's drug is great", "climate change isn't happening". And that is exactly what we actually see happening. It's even some of the exact same individual scientists who decades ago took money from tobacco companies to say smoking didn't cause cancer, who now take money from oil and gas companies to say climate change isn't happening.

[lilpixieofterror]

Baked in here is the assumption that large numbers of government reports and media productions on these issues are wildly inaccurate. They are not. Some are, and often they get raked over the coals for it when they are.

The reality is your sense that these outlets are often wildly inaccurate is more due to the disinformation you feed yourself on the topic than any real high percentage of legitimate sources on the topic being off the rails.

Your claim:

That would be one of those untrue pseudo scientific claims, not at all unlike how the yec websites try to pretend both sides of the old earth/young earth have equivalent but different interpretations of the data. It just simply isnt true in either case and the case is normally not hard to make... if a person is willing to look at the science and the data and has sufficient science background to understand it.

In response to:

....the climate debate is an issue with both sides because both sides engage in junk science and faulty conclusions.

[lilpixieofterror]

My summary:-

(1) MSM reports of climate / environment alarms, deadlines, etc. Predictions of bad things happening by .... unless we ...

This goes back to the 70s, at least, I think, with warnings of the coming Ice Age, global starvation by 2000 etc. But there have been plenty of similar things since then. Holes in the ozone layer, Global warming - now climate change. etc


(2) The predictions fail to come true, or are nowhere near as severe as warned


(3) MSM doesn't put out much on 'how we got it wrong' but moves to the latest scare.


Result: People are skeptical of the latest scare, and reluctant to believe published reports. This seeps over into skepticism of the science and scientists as well.


I know that MSM reports can and do promote falsehoods or just wrong stuff, due to reporter's ignorance/sloppiness/desire for a headline rather than balance. I've seen reports in areas I have some expertise in that contain blatant factual mistakes (calling a bacteria a virus is one example).

Scientists / experts regularly get misreported and misrepresented in the MSM. The MSM wants sensation, clickbait headlines etc. Not a measured, balanced report of the latest research, with suitable caveats about the limitations of what we can conclude from it. That doesn't sell.

However, scientists and associated people don't help by going along (to whatever degree they individually do) with the media narrative. They tend to be naive about the media agenda, and don't mount a concerted pushback when things that are wrong get put out there.

There is probably a degree of self interest to this, too. Sensational headlines that urge governments to 'take urgent action' in an area that you research in aren't likely to lead to a cut in your research funding and grant opportunities, are they? Speaking up will be unpopular, possibly fatal to your career prospects and thus your chances of finding our what's really going on with the climate, and your resistance likely won't even get heard outside a specialist community. Big price to pay for principle.

[seanD]

My summary:-

(1) MSM reports of climate / environment alarms, deadlines, etc. Predictions of bad things happening by .... unless we ...

This goes back to the 70s, at least, I think, with warnings of the coming Ice Age, global starvation by 2000 etc. But there have been plenty of similar things since then. Holes in the ozone layer, Global warming - now climate change. etc


(2) The predictions fail to come true, or are nowhere near as severe as warned


(3) MSM doesn't put out much on 'how we got it wrong' but moves to the latest scare.


Result: People are skeptical of the latest scare, and reluctant to believe published reports. This seeps over into skepticism of the science and scientists as well.


I know that MSM reports can and do promote falsehoods or just wrong stuff, due to reporter's ignorance/sloppiness/desire for a headline rather than balance. I've seen reports in areas I have some expertise in that contain blatant factual mistakes (calling a bacteria a virus is one example).

Scientists / experts regularly get misreported and misrepresented in the MSM. The MSM wants sensation, clickbait headlines etc. Not a measured, balanced report of the latest research, with suitable caveats about the limitations of what we can conclude from it. That doesn't sell.

However, scientists and associated people don't help by going along (to whatever degree they individually do) with the media narrative. They tend to be naive about the media agenda, and don't mount a concerted pushback when things that are wrong get put out there.

There is probably a degree of self interest to this, too. Sensational headlines that urge governments to 'take urgent action' in an area that you research in aren't likely to lead to a cut in your research funding and grant opportunities, are they? Speaking up will be unpopular, possibly fatal to your career prospects and thus your chances of finding our what's really going on with the climate, and your resistance likely won't even get heard outside a specialist community. Big price to pay for principle.

Other predictions like arctic meltdowns, NY being flooded, mass climate change refugees, etc., that have been wrong. The most recent one that got huge press was AOC's claim the world will end in 12 years unless immediate action is taken. Of course this was a misrepresentation of what the IPCC report stated, but you'd think there would be quite a bit of effort from the scientific community to correct such an absurd error from such a high profile individual. But, like you said, the media hype obviously works in their favor, at least in the short term, even if it is a misrepresentation.

[Starlight]

My summary:-

(1) MSM reports of climate / environment alarms, deadlines, etc. Predictions of bad things happening by .... unless we ...

This goes back to the 70s, at least, I think, with warnings of the coming Ice Age, global starvation by 2000 etc. But there have been plenty of similar things since then. Holes in the ozone layer, Global warming - now climate change. etc


(2) The predictions fail to come true, or are nowhere near as severe as warned


(3) MSM doesn't put out much on 'how we got it wrong' but moves to the latest scare.


Result: People are skeptical of the latest scare, and reluctant to believe published reports. This seeps over into skepticism of the science and scientists as well.

All of what you said is irrelevant and untrue because in practice 99.99% of people don't read 99.99% of published articles. Your idea that the general public is hyper-aware of absolutely everything any part of the media has ever said and has been carefully measuring it for factual accurate over decades, is laughable.

Instead, what has actually happened is simple:

1. Scientists discovered climate change was happening.

2. Big oil and gas companies who have been some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world for the last century, spotted that governments taking action to mitigate climate change might be a threat to their profits.

3. So big oil and gas companies payed a few people to muddy the waters and produce a few crank websites denying climate change, payed some radio talk show hosts to claim its false, got some commentators on TV to question it, and bribed some politicians into denying its real.

4. They make up absurd arguments like you posted above, trying to use the fact that somewhere sometime someone in the history of media published a hyperbolic article that pretty much nobody at the time read or took seriously and which didn't come true, as if that confirmed the anti-climate-change views you've chosen to hold for other reasons.

[seanD]

All of what you said is irrelevant and untrue because in practice 99.99% of people don't read 99.99% of published articles. Your idea that the general public is hyper-aware of absolutely everything any part of the media has ever said and has been carefully measuring it for factual accurate over decades, is laughable.

Instead, what has actually happened is simple:

1. Scientists discovered climate change was happening.

2. Big oil and gas companies who have been some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world for the last century, spotted that governments taking action to mitigate climate change might be a threat to their profits.

3. So big oil and gas companies payed a few people to muddy the waters and produce a few crank websites denying climate change, payed some radio talk show hosts to claim its false, got some commentators on TV to question it, and bribed some politicians into denying its real.

4. They make up absurd arguments like you posted above, trying to use the fact that somewhere sometime someone in the history of media published a hyperbolic article that pretty much nobody at the time read or took seriously and which didn't come true, as if that confirmed the anti-climate-change views you've chosen to hold for other reasons.

The "big oil" conspiracy that you guys love to parrot over and over apparently has little to no influence since most Americans agree that climate change is an issue. So, whether there is a big oil mass conspiracy to propagate disinfo and fake news, based on recent polls, it's a moot point. Again, anti-climate change websites cater to a niche, not to the broader public. I guarantee if you go outside and ask 100 people if they've ever heard of wattsupwiththat.com, one of the biggest niche sites out there, maybe two, three, half a dozen folks would know?