Frontline: 'Climate of Doubt' - (how the Right has turned Science into Politics)

[mbig]

Video
Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS
53 mins.

Transcript:
Transcript | Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS


Like what these clowns say is 'just' 'the Theory evolution', this is just another political position for them.
Pandering to Red State politicos.
This is like a sporting event for low brows.

MYRON EBELL: There are holdouts among the urban bicoastal elite, but I think we’ve won the debate with the American people in the heartland, the people who get their hands dirty, people who dig up stuff, grow stuff and make stuff for a living, people who have a closer relationship to tangible reality, to stuff.

We need to keep banging away on the science—

EA PARTY SPEAKER: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Lord Monckton!

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Introduced like a professional wrestler, Christopher Monckton is a former British journalist who admits he has no scientific qualifications.

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON, Competitive Enterprise Institute: Now we are met on a great battlefield of a new civil war!

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: But here, whipping up the crowd is his indisputable expertise.

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON: —know that in American-speak, you have a word for global warming. Can someone tell me what it is?

CROWD: Bull-[expletive deleted]!

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON: All together! Global warming is?

CROWD: Bull-[expletive deleted]!

OHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over]This is a community of skeptics. At the AFP rally, I ran into Myron Ebell, a supportive attendee and a speaker.

[on camera] Why are you here?

MYRON EBELL: Well, these are the grass roots that, you know, support our side. This is essentially a more organized form of a Tea Party group, right? A better funded.

The fact:

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Against the backdrop of all the pressure from skeptic groups, Congress ordered a comprehensive review of climate change research by the National Academy of Sciences.
The findings came back even stronger on human-caused climate change, and a subsequent study showed 97% of active climate scientists agreed.

[on camera] What’s settled here on climate change?

RALPH CICERONE, Pres., National Academy of Sciences: Virtually every place on earth is warming up. And people who have tried to go back and scrub the data — like, is there a mistake with the way they’re making these measurements — they’ve all concluded, no, the people who are doing this work at the key places around the world are agreeing with each other.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: What’s the bottom line, though, on human-caused global warming? I raise my hand in a high school science class and you’re the teacher. Are humans causing the global warming we’re seeing? What’s your answer?

RALPH CICERONE: Mostly. Yeah. Scientists are trying to shoot it down all the time, and in years and years and years, nobody’s been able to. So at some point, you have to say maybe it’s right.

 

[LowDown]

Video
Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS
53 mins.

Transcript:
Transcript | Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS


Like what these clowns say is 'just' 'the Theory evolution', this is just another political position for them.
Pandering to Red State politicos.
This is like a sporting event for low brows.

The fact:

The warmists are complaining that skeptics are "turning science into politics"? That's rich. I guess advocacy the author likes is "science" and advocacy he doesn't like is "politics."

The field has become so politicized by alarmist advocacy that it's impossible to discuss the issues in a reasonable way.

 

[Threegoofs]

The science is even clearer than it was a decade ago, but the deniers still pretend they have scientific criticism that is valid.

They can't actually show it in real journals, so they go to blogs and whip up the Fox News crowd and Senators who rely on oil,gas and coal money to get elected.

 

[KLATTU]

The science is even clearer than it was a decade agoelected.

Oh it most assured is much less clear, what with the flatlining of global warming. The warmists are scrambling to come up with 'explanations'.( Solid, objective science would casue them to question their hypotheses, but solid, objective science is not exaclty a trademark of Climate science. )
Met Office brainstorms UK bad weather | UK news | The Guardian

 

[mbig]

Oh it most assured is much less clear, what with the flatlining of global warming. The warmists are scrambling to come up with 'explanations'.( Solid, objective science would casue them to question their hypotheses, but solid, objective science is not exaclty a trademark of Climate science. )
Met Office brainstorms UK bad weather | UK news | The Guardian

And what does a bad few years of UK weather have to do with WORLD Temperature averages?
This is the anecdote Fallacy.. ie, someone tells us "Oregon is cold this WEEK, so there can't be warming".

Warming might well cause erratic and even colder weather in places, especially Northern Temperate zones where Greenland/Arctic Ice is melting and causing colder weather in say Northern North America/UK/etc.
Some scientists DO worry that melting Ice Sheets/cold run off Will deflect the Gulf Stream.. the UK Climate controller/warmer.
BUT:

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)

Year - Global - Land - Ocean

2010 0.6590 1.0748 0.5027
2005 0.6523 1.0505 0.5007
1998 0.6325 0.9351 0.5160
2003 0.6219 0.8859 0.5207
2002 0.6130 0.9351 0.4902
2006 0.5978 0.9091 0.4792
2009 0.5957 0.8621 0.4953
2007 0.5914 1.0886 0.3900
2004 0.5779 0.8132 0.4885
2012 0.5728 0.8968 0.4509

 

[KLATTU]

And what does a bad few years of UK weather have to do with WORLD Temperature averages?
This is the anecdote Fallacy.. ie, someone tells us "Oregon is cold this WEEK, so there can't be warming".

Anecdote?
Don't think so
Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show - Telegraph.

Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show
The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.
Don

 

[mbig]

Anecdote?
Don't think so
Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show - Telegraph.

Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show
The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.
Don

YOUR Link continues;

"The forecast compares how much higher average world temperatures are likely to be than the “long-term average” from 1971-2000.

It had been thought that this would be 0.54C during the period 2012 -2016 but new data puts the figure for the 2013-2017 period at 0.43C.

This figure is little higher than the 0.40C recorded in 1998, the warmest year in the Met Office Hadley Centre’s 160-year record – suggesting global warming will have stalled in the intervening two-decade period.

However, it is thought that factors such as ocean current patterns may be behind the slowdown and scientists say the “variability” in climate change does Not alter the Long-term trend of Rising temperatures."​

IOW, still warming but just not as fast at times/in places.
Precisely what I said.
(which is why you Didn't quote me Fully)
Nor did you tackle the fact that the 10 Warmest Years on record all being within the last 15... 1998-2012

 

[KLATTU]

YOUR Link
However, it is thought that factors such as ocean current patterns may be behind the slowdown and scientists say the “variability” in climate change does Not alter the Long-term trend of Rising temperatures."[/indent]
-2012

'scientists'=warmists.
Yeah we know- warmists always have a reason why their predictions don't pan out

 

[Threegoofs]

'scientists'=warmists.
)

This is the first true thing I've seen from you.

The converse, deniers= non scientists isn't quite true, but the denier-scientist is a rapidly declining breed, given the accumulation of data over the decades.

 

[Kanstantine]

Global warming hasn't stopped, it simply slowed down a bit.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I couldn't get any farther than Frontline claiming science was being turned into politics. The tears from my laughing blinded me.

 

[KLATTU]

Global warming hasn't stopped, it simply slowed down a bit.

Well we don't that do we? That's kinda the point. All the models say it will keep warming, but all the models have been wrong so far. Thus-skepticism.

 

[Threegoofs]

Apparently, all the models that said we would be in a warmer world this decade need to be dismissed to make the above claim true.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The science is even clearer than it was a decade ago, but the deniers still pretend they have scientific criticism that is valid.

They can't actually show it in real journals, so they go to blogs and whip up the Fox News crowd and Senators who rely on oil,gas and coal money to get elected.

Deniers have little or nothing to do with it. People are not stupid - the global warming fear mongers have done a brilliant job of discrediting themselves with little help from anyone else - Al Gore as the global warming figurehead has been a disaster as he racks up tens of millions in personal wealth of the backs off the naive fools.

And since you claim the science is much clearer now, why do you think the proponents have moved off the "global warming" talking points and shifted to "climate change" talking points now?

 

[longview]

Apparently, all the models that said we would be in a warmer world this decade need to be dismissed to make the above claim true.

Dismissing all of the models might be a bit bold,
how about we just dismiss the ones that show a linear progression
between Co2 and temperature?

 

[Threegoofs]

Dismissing all of the models might be a bit bold,
how about we just dismiss the ones that show a linear progression
between Co2 and temperature?

You realize that that linear relationship doesn't manifest as a straight line in the short term, right? And this is a multidecadal issue?

 

[longview]

You realize that that linear relationship doesn't manifest as a straight line in the short term, right? And this is a multidecadal issue?

There is not quantitative definition of this relationship, other than that defined by Co2 alone.
The greenhouse effect of adding Co2, while not linear, are quite predictable.
The time differential of an IR photon leaving earth with 280 ppm of Co2 vs 400 ppm is
likely less than 10 ms (the spontaneous emission time of Co2 excited to a vibrational 3 level.)
The photon will still leave, it will just take longer (<1 second).
Also even a "multidecadal" issue is thrown askew by a 17 year flat spot.

 

[polgara]

Deniers have little or nothing to do with it. People are not stupid - the global warming fear mongers have done a brilliant job of discrediting themselves with little help from anyone else - Al Gore as the global warming figurehead has been a disaster as he racks up tens of millions in personal wealth of the backs off the naive fools.

And since you claim the science is much clearer now, why do you think the proponents have moved off the "global warming" talking points and shifted to "climate change" talking points now?

:waiting: to see the answer to your question! I do hope it's informative.... :lamo:

 

[flogger]

The science is even clearer than it was a decade ago, but the deniers still pretend they have scientific criticism that is valid.

They can't actually show it in real journals, so they go to blogs and whip up the Fox News crowd and Senators who rely on oil,gas and coal money to get elected.

Your politics are showing Mr 'scientist'. I always find it quite hilarious how 'clear' you always find this 'science' without ever actually being able to produce any of it for our perusal !

 

[mbig]

I couldn't get any farther than Frontline claiming science was being turned into politics. The tears from my laughing blinded me.

"couldn't" be the operative word.
I'm guessing you watched a bit and have nothing to say in refutation.
Back to the WWE eh?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

"couldn't" be the operative word.
I'm guessing you watched a bit and have nothing to say in refutation.
Back to the WWE eh?

Frontline is politics not science. What part of that can't you grasp?

 

[Threegoofs]

Your politics are showing Mr 'scientist'. I always find it quite hilarious how 'clear' you always find this 'science' without ever actually being able to produce any of it for our perusal !

1) go to the library.
2) open the important multidisciplinary journals in science .
3) read

There you go.

For confirmation, just check out the websites of virtually any standard scientific resource (Scientific American, NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, etc). They rely on the primary literature found in #2, above, to create their information.

 

[mbig]

Frontline is politics not science. What part of that can't you grasp?

You're kidding right?
With the 90% Blogs and other Clown links you put up.
What was that one you Embarrassed yourself with two days ago?
'Institute for Creation Research'

vs
Highly respected Frontline DOCUMENTARIES citing, among others, Scientists from NASA, NOAA, the Head of the National Academy of Sciences.

This is mostly a 'battle' between maniupulated Low Brow Tea Party/Red State WWE fans and Mainstream Science.
The whole point of the Frontline documentary.

 

[Threegoofs]

Really? Institute of Creation Research?

I missed that post. I didn't know it was that bad.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You're kidding right?
With the 90% Blogs and other Clown links you put up.
What was that one you Embarrassed yourself with two days ago?
'Institute for Creation Research'

vs
Highly respected Frontline DOCUMENTARIES citing, among others, Scientists from NASA, NOAA, the Head of the National Academy of Sciences.

This is mostly a 'battle' between maniupulated Low Brow Tea Party/Red State WWE fans and Mainstream Science.
The whole point of the Frontline documentary.

Frontline is standard NPR, PBS liberal propaganda. Using them as a scientific source is akin to using MSNBC as unbiased journalism.