Here is an article from the scientific press which reinforces my views of the
misreporting of the global warming "debate" by the BBC. It is not only in hte
US that the balance is biased!

Cheers, Alastair.

Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press
Maxwell T. Boykoff and Jules M. Boykoff
Global Environmental Change Part A
Volume 14, Issue 2 , July 2004, Pages 125-136

Abstract
This paper demonstrates that US prestige-press coverage of global warming from
1988 to 2002 has contributed to a significant divergence of popular discourse
from scientific discourse. This failed discursive translation results from an
accumulation of tactical media responses and practices guided by widely
accepted journalistic norms. Through content analysis of US prestige
press-meaning the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times,
and the Wall Street Journal-this paper focuses on the norm of balanced
reporting, and shows that the prestige press's adherence to balance actually
leads to biased coverage of both anthropogenic contributions to global warming
and resultant action.

"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote in message

Here is an article from the scientific press which reinforces my views of the
misreporting of the global warming "debate" by the BBC. It is not only in hte
US that the balance is biased!

Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press
Maxwell T. Boykoff and Jules M. Boykoff
Global Environmental Change Part A
Volume 14, Issue 2 , July 2004, Pages 125-136

Technology Already Exists to Stabilize Global Warming
August 12 — Existing technologies could stop the escalation of global
warming for 50 years and work on implementing them can begin
immediately, according to an analysis by Princeton University
scientists. (PhysOrg.com, Christian Science Monitor)

New Findings Show Earth is Not Getting Warmer
August 12 — Contrary to most research, a new study finds the Earth is
not warming significantly, say scientists with the universities of
Rochester and Virginia. (U.S. Newswire)

Reefs Get Global Warming Lifeline
August 11 — New research shows that some forms of algae can allow coral
to withstand higher temperatures, potentially reducing the impact of
global warming. (Nature, CBC)

Almost every other article in:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...01/200108.html is
about global warming. In a democratic use of statistics, global warming
would be proven. Fortunately most sciences still require facts not
opinion.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:21:04 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

Here is an article from the scientific press which reinforces my views of the
misreporting of the global warming "debate" by the BBC. It is not only in hte
US that the balance is biased!

I interpreted the paper as saying that because the reporting was
*balanced* - not biased - because of "journalistic balance" - that not
enough weight is being given to global warming. That GW is even worse
than the papers make out as the press is trying to be so balanced in
its reporting.

Part of the conclusion states "The central messages in the
generally-agreed-upon scientific discourse have therefore not be
proliferated by the mass media into the popular arena".

The author states

"The proper response to public doubts is not to increase the public's
technical knowledge about and therefore belief in the scientific facts
of global war,ing. Rather it should be to increase the public
understanding of and therefore trust in the social process through
which those facts are scientifically determined".

I think the author is saying - stuff the science, if we present global
warming using good drama, then the public will take note.

But I see the BBC as *not* giving a balanced view of GW. I haven't
seen or heard documentaries talking about global staying pretty much
the same, some years better, some years worse.

Jeepers. Last years fabulous summer was blamed on global warming. And
so is this years dire summer. "Worst August on record" screams the
BBC, ignoring all the other wetter Augusts.

Anyway, I'm even more confused now.

Noz

--
Email (ROT13)

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:24:20 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

I posted the link to the paper itself since this is a sci newsgroup, but of
course everyone here is not a professional scientist. The abstract was a bit
"abstract" :-( The report is not :-)

HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

Hehe

Thanks Alastair

Noz
--
Email (ROT13)

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:24:20 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

If it is the wettest August ever then there were no wetter August. In that
report
there was no mention made of global warming, a good example of balance.
But we know that more flooding is one of the predictions for global warming.
Therefore it would only be honest (unbiased scientifically) to point that out.
See; August rain reaches record levels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3599132.stm

Which says
"This summer could be the wettest ever recorded
England is experiencing its wettest August ever recorded, the BBC
weather centre has said.
On average, 120mm of rainfall has fallen across the country since the
start of the month, around two-thirds more than normal. "

The word "could" somehow gets lost (for me) at the start of the
article.

But this summer is not the wettest recorded. There have been 20
wetter summers in the last 150 years, and yet the report doesn't
mention them at all.

And is there more flooding than normal? Or just more media coverage?

Noz

--
Email (ROT13)

"Nozza" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:24:20 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

If it is the wettest August ever then there were no wetter August. In that
report
there was no mention made of global warming, a good example of balance.
But we know that more flooding is one of the predictions for global
warming.
Therefore it would only be honest (unbiased scientifically) to point that
out.
See; August rain reaches record levels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3599132.stm

Which says
"This summer could be the wettest ever recorded
England is experiencing its wettest August ever recorded, the BBC
weather centre has said.
On average, 120mm of rainfall has fallen across the country since the
start of the month, around two-thirds more than normal. "

The word "could" somehow gets lost (for me) at the start of the
article.

But this summer is not the wettest recorded. There have been 20
wetter summers in the last 150 years, and yet the report doesn't
mention them at all.

The summer is not over yet. There has been quite a lot more rainfall
since that article was published.

And is there more flooding than normal? Or just more media coverage?

It was claimed that Boscastle was not unusal because a similar event
had happened in Lynmouth in 1952. It now seems that the Lynmouth
event was heightened by cloud seeding. That was covered up by the autorities
in the same way as the testing of chemical and biological weapons
on human guineapigs at Porton Down was covered up around the same time.
I don't see those who used Lynmouth as an example of a natural event
to prove that Boscastle was not unusual, now admitting that their arguments
were unfounded!

Moreover record summer rainfall is not needed for this summer to be
similar to those which will occur during the rest of this century.

But I am not really interested in debating whether global warming is
happening or not. What I am interested in is why, when the scientific
evidence is so compelling, it is that the layman, and the not so lay
men of this newsgroup, are still in doubt. Some are even in violent
opposition. There must be a clue here somewhere, because no such
emotional prejudices are expressed over the theory of gravitation.

Oh well, it will all become clear one day, though it does seem to me
that the fossil fuel lobby have much more to lose than the tobacco
industry had, and many more resources to enable them to distort
the scientific message.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:07:23 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

What I am interested in is why, when the scientific
evidence is so compelling, it is that the layman, and the not so lay
men of this newsgroup, are still in doubt. Some are even in violent
opposition. There must be a clue here somewhere, because no such
emotional prejudices are expressed over the theory of gravitation.

Maybe it is simply because, as a theory, gravity works well, and
experiment has demonstrated it, so that it has even become a law.

Whereas, I look out of my window today, check the temperature and
think - oh, it's a dull Autumn day - a bit cooler than normal. But I
don't draw the conclusion that the normal weather is due to GW.

Maybe the evidence simply isn't compelling.

As for the emotion... I think a fair number of people get emotional
when they feel they get fed bull**** from the media.

Noz
--
Email (ROT13)

"Nozza" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:07:23 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

What I am interested in is why, when the scientific
evidence is so compelling, it is that the layman, and the not so lay
men of this newsgroup, are still in doubt. Some are even in violent
opposition. There must be a clue here somewhere, because no such
emotional prejudices are expressed over the theory of gravitation.

Maybe it is simply because, as a theory, gravity works well, and
experiment has demonstrated it, so that it has even become a law.

Whereas, I look out of my window today, check the temperature and
think - oh, it's a dull Autumn day - a bit cooler than normal. But I
don't draw the conclusion that the normal weather is due to GW.

It doesn't occur to you that when one day you do look out of your window
and see the evidence of global warming, then it will be too late to do
anything to stop it?

Maybe the evidence simply isn't compelling.

The evidence is compelling, but not if you ignore it.

As for the emotion... I think a fair number of people get emotional
when they feel they get fed bull**** from the media.

The point that the paper was making was that the media bull****
is that there is nothing to worry about. It seems that you have fallen
for it!

Cheers, Alastair.

In message
"Alastair McDonald" k wrote:


"Nozza" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:07:23 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

What I am interested in is why, when the scientific
evidence is so compelling, it is that the layman, and the not so lay
men of this newsgroup, are still in doubt. Some are even in violent
opposition. There must be a clue here somewhere, because no such
emotional prejudices are expressed over the theory of gravitation.

Maybe it is simply because, as a theory, gravity works well, and
experiment has demonstrated it, so that it has even become a law.

Whereas, I look out of my window today, check the temperature and
think - oh, it's a dull Autumn day - a bit cooler than normal. But I
don't draw the conclusion that the normal weather is due to GW.

It doesn't occur to you that when one day you do look out of your window
and see the evidence of global warming, then it will be too late to do
anything to stop it?

Maybe the evidence simply isn't compelling.

The evidence is compelling, but not if you ignore it.

As for the emotion... I think a fair number of people get emotional
when they feel they get fed bull**** from the media.

The point that the paper was making was that the media bull****
is that there is nothing to worry about. It seems that you have fallen
for it!


I think the real bull**** is the idea that our politicians can do anything to
stop it. There may be nothing we can do to change things. It might already
be too late. Or it might all be rubbish. something else might come along to
cancel it out. who knows. If it happens it happens.

We can either face
managing it after committing economic suicide trying to control the climate
with no guarantee of success or not. That is probably the real choice. But
keeping our economic strength will improve our chances of managing it.


King Canute comes to mind for some reason.

Martin
--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/

Martin, thats rather insouciant.

"Martin Dixon" wrote in message
...
In message
"Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:


"Nozza" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:07:23 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

What I am interested in is why, when the scientific
evidence is so compelling, it is that the layman, and the not so lay
men of this newsgroup, are still in doubt. Some are even in violent
opposition. There must be a clue here somewhere, because no such
emotional prejudices are expressed over the theory of gravitation.

Maybe it is simply because, as a theory, gravity works well, and
experiment has demonstrated it, so that it has even become a law.

Whereas, I look out of my window today, check the temperature and
think - oh, it's a dull Autumn day - a bit cooler than normal. But I
don't draw the conclusion that the normal weather is due to GW.

It doesn't occur to you that when one day you do look out of your window
and see the evidence of global warming, then it will be too late to do
anything to stop it?

Maybe the evidence simply isn't compelling.

The evidence is compelling, but not if you ignore it.

As for the emotion... I think a fair number of people get emotional
when they feel they get fed bull**** from the media.

The point that the paper was making was that the media bull****
is that there is nothing to worry about. It seems that you have fallen
for it!


I think the real bull**** is the idea that our politicians can do anything
to
stop it. There may be nothing we can do to change things. It might
already
be too late. Or it might all be rubbish. something else might come along
to
cancel it out. who knows. If it happens it happens.

We can either face
managing it after committing economic suicide trying to control the
climate
with no guarantee of success or not. That is probably the real choice. But
keeping our economic strength will improve our chances of managing it.


King Canute comes to mind for some reason.

Martin
--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/

Martin, OK, so it presumably wouldn't matter if we went in the other
direction? Less efficency? More rapid consumption of fossil fuels? Forget
nuclear and renewables and dash for bituminous coals? All this, since doing
something about climate change might be suicide to them, would, presumably,
help the worlds economy? I remain to be convinced, convinced that sitting on
our hands is the way forward, or that trying to get us off our hands is
wrong - convince me.