Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 8:36:38 PM UTC+12, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:48:44 PM UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote: On Saturday, 3 August 2019 21:38:42 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote: On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote: On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote: On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote: On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote: On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote: This is the full version, HTH: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but, considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However, one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what they'd said. A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order! I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human, they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do. Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a series of dire warnings. Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen. |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Don't know about your country, but in NZ the insults have come entirely from one side of the aisle. Sadly, much of your post rather disproves that & does nothing to forward the environmental cause. Also only 2 insulting posts in this thread, and they are not from deniers. Graham (Member of Greenpeace & SAS) Penzance |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 03/08/2019 21:38, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote: On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote: On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote: On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote: On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote: This is the full version, HTH: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but, considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However, one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what they'd said. A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order! I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human, they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do. Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a series of dire warnings. Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen. I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run out in the 1890's. Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer. The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh, Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now. See: New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data. @ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-accelerating Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the World, so there's little hope for the human race. Keith (Southend) Keith, You may find this podcast of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...weekly-podcast But I have found that it is pointless arguing with anyone, not just about climate change or Brexit. Even if you win the argument, your opponent will not be convinced, believing that there is some information he is missing that would prove you wrong :-( How do you know whether or not you're repsonding to a slag-bot? -- Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 7:57:42 AM UTC+12, Graham Easterling wrote:
Don't know about your country, but in NZ the insults have come entirely from one side of the aisle. Sadly, much of your post rather disproves that & does nothing to forward the environmental cause. Also only 2 insulting posts in this thread, and they are not from deniers. Graham (Member of Greenpeace & SAS) Penzance My remarks about the person and organisation that launched the court case - a time-consuming waste of taxpayer money - are factual. If you happen to think that such people are deserving of any respect at all when they spend their time trying to destroy lives and reputations, that's not my problem. |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 03/08/2019 14:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote: This is the full version, HTH: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 Ah, a media story. I say much the same about the BBC TV news and its relentless, one-sided portrayal of 'climate change', but at least they were brave enough to hold a secret meeting (the secrecy was later denied, when the matter became public knowledge) with climate change supporters that agreed to put forward only one side of the climate change debate. So much for 'impartiality', I suppose, but one wonders why such a betrayal of the public was thought necessary. My personal experience with these is that they often bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but, considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However, one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what they'd said. I've been fortunate enough to have been involved in what later became 'news stories', and can agree that what appears in public can be only part of the whole story. That's the media for you. A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order! The interesting thing about the AP article is that much of what was said was in the form of quotes rather than words that had been jiggled about. Unfortunately reports such as that on which the article was based have a tendency to disappear from view, especially having been written before the days of the internet and even more so when the predictions they made do not come to pass. A search of the UNEP web site failed to turn up the report, or even any mention of its author, so this is now the best that can be done, and it shouldn't be discarded because of that. -- Spike |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 05/08/2019 10:16, Spike wrote:
The interesting thing about the AP article is that much of what was said was in the form of quotes rather than words that had been jiggled about. As I pointed out in the two examples I gave, quotes can often bear little or no relationship to what was actually said. I've also seen articles based on press statements that have been so mangled that they also bear no relevance to the original statement. -- Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/ “Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the truth.” [Ambassador Kosh] Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed. |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 05/08/2019 15:29, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 05/08/2019 10:16, Spike wrote: The interesting thing about the AP article is that much of what was said was in the form of quotes rather than words that had been jiggled about. As I pointed out in the two examples I gave, quotes can often bear little or no relationship to what was actually said. I've also seen articles based on press statements that have been so mangled that they also bear no relevance to the original statement. But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt the provenance of the information in that particular AP article. -- Spike |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 05/08/2019 15:27, Spike wrote:
But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt the provenance of the information in that particular AP article. But even if it were accurately reported (which seems unlikely as Graham has described) then so what? We know that there can be a considerable lag (40-50 years, maybe more) for a given CO2 level to have its full effect on polar ice melt, sea-level etc. So the full consequences of the CO2 level in 2000 won't be seen until at least eg 2040-2050. Maybe you could come back to this forum then and we can review what actually happened. |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, 5 August 2019 15:27:25 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 05/08/2019 15:29, Graham P Davis wrote: On 05/08/2019 10:16, Spike wrote: The interesting thing about the AP article is that much of what was said was in the form of quotes rather than words that had been jiggled about. |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 3:15:45 AM UTC+12, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Monday, 5 August 2019 15:27:25 UTC+1, Spike wrote: On 05/08/2019 15:29, Graham P Davis wrote: On 05/08/2019 10:16, Spike wrote: The interesting thing about the AP article is that much of what was said was in the form of quotes rather than words that had been jiggled about. As I pointed out in the two examples I gave, quotes can often bear little or no relationship to what was actually said. I've also seen articles based on press statements that have been so mangled that they also bear no relevance to the original statement. But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt the provenance of the information in that particular AP article. -- Spike That article was correct. It is backed up in a book both I and Graham have read, "Losing Earth: The Decade We Could Have Stopped Climate Change", by Nathaniel Rich, 20119. If we had taken action in 1980 and 1990 we could have prevented the disasters that have only just begun, with record temperatures, floods, and wildfire spreading throughout the world, not to mention the immigration crises affecting both Europe and the USA, and sea level rise accelerating. Just so. Meanwhile those with bad motives continue to try and confuse the issues in a criminally irresponsible way. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ancient climate records 'back predictions' Climate sensitivitysimilar in past warmings | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Climate Change Disaster Is Imminent!! | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System? | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
BBC NEWS | England | Oxfordshire | Climate change 'disaster by 2026' | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
20 years ago today - York Minster | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |