Would Better PR Be Beneficial In Getting The Message Across To The General Public

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe the folk you outline BFTV should make it plainer that it is the science that 'bullies them' into doubting their own gut feelings? Maybe it is because far more is know about our current climate shift than many folk care to accept (whilst finding it easier to accept press releases on 'unsettled science'?) and so running into the deluge of data, when you believed there was no data, can be off putting?

 

It must be intimidating to enter into discussions with a pet theory but if the theory does not stand up to scrutiny then how does it profit the bearer at all? There is nothing wrong in being wrong so long as you grow from the experience.....pretty daft to keep on turning up and being wrong for the same reasons time and time again?

 

Ho Hum!

[Methuselah]

True enough Ian, up to a point...It's not the 'bearers' fault, it's the fault of those who spread around that which they know to be untrue. For far too many years to be proud of, I really did believe that whatever's reported in the press must be true...I guess that that's largely because, apart from the very few, we are all brought up to trust what our 'superiors' tell us: my country right or wrong, and all the associated lies and deception that goes with that notion...

 

And now, it seems, Mr Gove wants to bring back the very type of 'education' (the ability to unthinkingly spout dates of battles and such, as if they mattered) in which, free-thinking is considered a 'waste of time'...But it was the very same free-thinking that drove the Renaissance in logical thought - and drove the Industrial Revolution. So, what really concerns me just now, is not that people are sceptical of science and of what science can offer; it's the move backward towards the 'Golden Age' when any words spoken by Lord Hyphen-Hyphen-Hyphen were unquestioningly accepted as being true...

 

If science has anything to 'worship', in a quasi-religious sense, then that thing is scepticism. Scepticism is what makes science happen; it is the Holy Grail of science...

[stewfox]

Oceanic heat content is increasing, so I don't see the issue there. So is it just solar that makes you question things?

What do you consider valid evidence, SI? I'd appreciate an answer, because its difficult to discuss things with you, given that you tend to dismiss conventional lines of evidence and scientific data.

[stewfox]

Ocean heat increasing ? No we know some very minor warming of the upper surface Given we dont have any data for 80% of the ocean (by volume) you cant say the oceans are warming. This is a good example of a blinkered inaccurate statement. like the ice sheets of the Himalayias will disappear in 2050. Poor PR and mis leading

Edited May 8, 2013 by stewfox

[Methuselah]

Ocean heat increasing ? No we know some very minor warming of the upper surface Given we dont have any data for 80% of the ocean (by volume) you cant say the oceans are warming. This is a good example of a blinkered inaccurate statement. like the ice sheets of the Himalayias will disappear in 2050. Poor PR and mis leading

True enough, stew. But small sample-size, given how little we've analysed, presents the same problems to both sides of the divide...Any particular reason why the sampled parts of the ocean should be any different from the rest?

[BornFromTheVoid]

No we know some very minor warming of the upper service. Given we dont have any data for 80% of the ocean (by volume) you cant say the oceans are warming. This is a good example of a blinkered inaccurate statement. like the ice sheets of the Himalayias will disappear in 2050. Poor PR and mis leading

 

We can see all the sea surface.

For the lower reaches, that's where interpolation and modelling comes into play. These are things commonly used in many scientific area, not just climate.

Anyway, basic physics dictates that the oceans must be accumulating heat due the the energy imbalance caused by the extra GHGs.

That's the reality of the situation I'm afraid...

[UV-RAY]

There we go again relying far too much on climate models to fill in the missing data, it's simply not good enough saying that this is how other scientific areas gather data as they don't receive vast sums of money by manipulating what little data is available.

[Methuselah]

So we assume that the sampled oceanic surface is somehow different to the rest, eh? Or do we, like in every other field of study, apply Occam's razor until the evidence suggests otherwise?

[knocker]

There we go again relying far too much on climate models to fill in the missing data, it's simply not good enough saying that this is how other scientific areas gather data as they don't receive vast sums of money by manipulating what little data is available.

 

Intriguing concept that. The deniers, financed with vast sums of money by the fossil fuel industry, seem to get away with manipulating vast amounts of data that is available.

Edited May 8, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

An example.

 

Cherry-picking one survey to discredit a survey of scientists on climate change

There is also uncertainty regarding to what degree man is to blame for global warming. However, the claim that 98 percent of scientists agree that humans are the singular driver of climate change has been repeatedly discounted. This oft-cited statistic is based on an online survey with a sample size of only 77 people, and the survey didn’t even ask to what degree humans contribute to climate change.â€

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/cherry-picking-one-survey-to-discredit-a-survey-of-scientists-on-climate-change/2013/05/07/e69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html

[stewfox]

Intriguing concept that. The deniers, financed with vast sums of money by the fossil fuel industry, seem to get away with manipulating vast amounts of data that is available.

Can you translate ? The deniers ?

[knocker]

Can you translate ? The deniers ?

 

I thought i already had. People like Monckton, et, al.

[stewfox]

So we assume that the sampled oceanic surface is somehow different to the rest, eh? Or do we, like in every other field of study, apply Occam's razor until the evidence suggests otherwise?

The suggestion is that you are making many assumptions. Thats again poor PR

I thought i already had. People like Monckton, et, al.

Apologies sounds like some witch craft trial.

[Devonian]

Ocean heat increasing ? No we know some very minor warming of the upper surface Given we dont have any data for 80% of the ocean (by volume) you cant say the oceans are warming. This is a good example of a blinkered inaccurate statement. like the ice sheets of the Himalayias will disappear in 2050. Poor PR and mis leading

Synoptic charts are drawing with incomplete air pressure data. By your principle, Stew, that invalidates them. Edited May 9, 2013 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Maybe all the ocean temperature-measuring devices have been deliberately placed too close to thermal vents? What's up with that!

Edited May 9, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[BornFromTheVoid]

There we go again relying far too much on climate models to fill in the missing data, it's simply not good enough saying that this is how other scientific areas gather data as they don't receive vast sums of money by manipulating what little data is available.

 

Not necessarily climate models. Anyway, even the fossil fuel industry uses models and interpolation to find their oil, based of just a handful of cores. Modelling is done to ensure you have enough water drink. Modelling is done for ecosystems, astronomy, even they ol' Milankovitch cycles detection involved modelling!

 

Why the need to throw in the constant conspiracies? Do you really think the scientists are just in it for the money and are manipulating data for grant money? What do you think is done with grant money? Drugs and hookers!?

 

As for the debate over the self proclaimed "sceptics" in here complaining about the word "denier", perhaps if some actual scepticism was demonstrated, terms like denier wouldn't be used as much? 

[Gray-Wolf]

Camelot, Camelot ,Camelot.........(it's only a model.....)

 

I agree that to dismiss 'models' as an invalid way to see huge areas of data is foolhardy and would make day to day living impossible.

 

As with programming the model is only as good as it's data (R.I.R.O.) so you have to be careful as to how the model is prepared and what it's limitations are but after that how else can we view things like future behaviours of our planet? Sit and watch??? With Millions of lives in the balance surely we cannot just sit and watch?

[knocker]

How would we have reached where we are regarding numerical forecasting without the evolution of models over the last 50 years? NW wouldn't be around.

[Methuselah]

How is the use (along with its stated fully-acknowledged limitations) of Occam's razor 'bad PR'? The only other approach that's ever suggested merely seems to consist of creating the most whacky-sounding conspiracy imaginable, and then running with the somewhat bizarre notion: the fact that (said conspiracy) is 100% unsupported by any evidence somehow implies that it must be true...

 

Perhaps the Lizard People really did kill JFK?

[stewfox]

 

 

As for the debate over the self proclaimed "sceptics" in here complaining about the word "denier", perhaps if some actual scepticism was demonstrated, terms like denier wouldn't be used as much? 

 

I denier for me is someone who says the moon is made of cheese or summer artic ice is in great shape. They ignore the irrefutable evidence. Show them a rock they will say its steel. 

 

Someone who questions wether we know the all about global sea temperatures or questions the comment  'the summer artic will be ice free in 20 years timer' is a  'enquirer of truth'

 

Its someone who will not be blindly led up a dark alley , a freedom fighter , a robust individual who keeps a close path to the channel of irrefutable truth not half measure that avail us nothing 

 

These people have finally woken up the Public to not 'accept' blindly all the rhetoric of the last 20yrs over global warming and poor PR.

[knocker]

I denier for me is someone who says the moon is made of cheese or summer artic ice is in great shape. They ignore the irrefutable evidence. Show them a rock they will say its steel. 

 

Someone who questions wether we know the all about global sea temperatures or questions the comment  'the summer artic will be ice free in 20 years timer' is a  'enquirer of truth'

 

Its someone who will not be blindly led up a dark alley , a freedom fighter , a robust individual who keeps a close path to the channel of irrefutable truth not half measure that avail us nothing 

 

These people have finally woken up the Public to not 'accept' blindly all the rhetoric of the last 20yrs over global warming and poor PR.

 

That rhetoric has been backed up with plenty of scientific research. And of course it applies in reverse to much of the twaddle that comes out of the fossil fuel financed camp and others with vested interests. As is ongoing in Canada at the moment.

[stewfox]

That rhetoric has been backed up with plenty of scientific research. And of course it applies in reverse to much of the twaddle that comes out of the fossil fuel financed camp and others with vested interests. As is ongoing in Canada at the moment.

 

The last 20 years of rhetoric backed up with scientific research around Global warming has given us 16000 Green Party Members.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales

 

Under 0.003% of the population

 

I feel there is scope for better PR .

[knocker]

Well I agree with you there stew. But of course it's not only PR because politicians have a big hand in the gravy as again shown iin Canada.

Edited May 9, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

I denier for me is someone who says the moon is made of cheese or summer artic ice is in great shape. They ignore the irrefutable evidence. Show them a rock they will say its steel. 

 

Someone who questions wether we know the all about global sea temperatures or questions the comment  'the summer artic will be ice free in 20 years timer' is a  'enquirer of truth'

 

Its someone who will not be blindly led up a dark alley , a freedom fighter , a robust individual who keeps a close path to the channel of irrefutable truth not half measure that avail us nothing 

 

These people have finally woken up the Public to not 'accept' blindly all the rhetoric of the last 20yrs over global warming and poor PR.

 

I find saying that the moon is cheese, is the equivalent to saying CO2 can't do anything because it's a trace gas.

 

Everyone questions those things, then looks at the evidence and decide, that's being sceptical. Deniers tend to dismiss all the scientific evidence that's against them (gravy train scientists, new world order, liberal conspiracy, green industry propaganda) yet blindly follow the fossil fuel funded blogs without the slightest hint of scepticism.

 

I'm sure people are waking up, like how many are walking up to "intelligent design" or a 6,000 year old Earth. Thankfully, there seems to be a rational majority.

[stewfox]

I find saying that the moon is cheese, is the equivalent to saying CO2 can't do anything because it's a trace gas.

Everyone questions those things, then looks at the evidence and decide, that's being sceptical. Deniers tend to dismiss all the scientific evidence that's against them (gravy train scientists, new world order, liberal conspiracy, green industry propaganda) yet blindly follow the fossil fuel funded blogs without the slightest hint of scepticism.

I'm sure people are waking up, like how many are walking up to "intelligent design" or a 6,000 year old Earth. Thankfully, there seems to be a rational majority.