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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.