A balanced view does not reflect the scientific consensus on climate change.
Credit: iStockphoto
MELBOURNE: Airing the views of climate change sceptics in the media may only be serving to keep the global warming controversy boiling, argue scientists.
Leading climate change experts have warned the World Conference of Science Journalists in Melbourne, Australia, that a balanced view does not always reflect the consensus of the research community.
Kevin Hennessy, a lead scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said yesterday that media attention on "the view of a handful of climate change sceptics" amplifies their opinions and "implies that there is little agreement about the basic facts of global warming".
Hennessy is also with the marine and atmospheric division of Australian government research body, CSIRO.
Speaking in a session about climate change reporting, he said editors and journalists have a duty to ensure that facts are presented in context. Balanced reporting, he said, "perpetuates the public's perception that scientists are in disarray, which is misleading in the case of climate change".
Geoff Love, secretary of the IPCC and former deputy director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, said that IPCC assessment reports from 1990 through to this year are strong evidence of "the coming together of the scientific community."
Emphasis on the sceptic view does not help public understanding of climate change, said Love.
Media coverage has not always reflected the consensus of the majority of the scientific community, said Ian Lowe, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation a non-profit environment group. "That only makes the public and political discussion more difficult," he said.
The problem is compounded by a lack of reporting on climate change, according to Chris Mooney, a U.S.-based science journalist attending the conference. Although the 2006 hurricane season attracted a lot of media attention, Mooney presented statistics from the United States showing that climate change has never been a priority in the media.
The situation is similar in Africa, said Ochieng' Ogodoa a Kenyan correspondent for London, U.K.-based news web site SciDev.Net. Articles about deaths caused by floods or other natural disasters, and political scandals related to climate change tend to get precedence, he said.
How much more freedom?
It seems that the general consensus of sceptics on here is that climate change, government control, loss of freedom and the spread of communism are all linked in some way.
I find this incredibly bizarre and more than a little bit worrying.
Put your guns down, there is no one out to get you. Global warming wasn't invented to take away your freedom. There is no conspiracy, so just calm down.
Sheesh, I don't know that climate change is our biggest worry. All these paranoid conspiracy theorists seem to be a bigger concern. I don't even want to contemplate that they probably also believe that every man woman and child should be armed - 'cause it's their right, yeehaw!
Stifling debate
Keep your head in the sand if you like, but the attempt to quash debate on the subject of climate is not a "grass-roots" phenomenon. It is indeed a top-down political machination. Regardless of its source, Brussels, the Kremlin, Washington, New York, etc., there is a concerted effort to pervert science into an agenda-driven political device. The day that debate is over is the day science truly dies.
Mark Whitney
Sandy, Utah
USA
P.S. Is everyone afraid to take responsibility for their opinions, refusing to sign their posts?
How much more LOSS of freedom
So all those experts advocating limits on what you can drive, where you can live, mandating public transportation, and driving to increase taxes on gasoline, heating fuels, & air travel, have no interest in controling your life and lowering your standard of living. Here in Minnesota, the DEMS, (socialists) are advocating a $1500.00 per family per year increase in taxes and fees to 'save the planet'.
And the freedom of others?
OK, so you want the freedom to be able to go and use the town water supply as your toilet if you want, build a house anywhere you want, drive as fast as you want and anywhere you want, even shoot anyone you want, all because you think anything less is eroding your freedom? That may be fine for you, but what about the rights and freedoms of every other citizen?
Taxes are not about controlling your life, it's about payment for services used. Did you build those roads and maintain them? Did you treat that effluent? Did you pump that water to your house? Do you provide all those countless ancillary services that allow you to live your day to day life?
Limits are not to control you, they are an attempt to provide a balance in society so that freedom and rights are equal for everyone.
Sure, they aren't perfect and a lot of times governments get it wrong, but I'd rather see some limits imposed than the general chaos and mayhem that absolute freedom with no social responsibility would bring.
Global Hoax Scare-Mongers with a Political Agenda
The Stalinists are taking over the Global Screaming Debate, kicking out even the Trotskyites.
In the schools they are brainwashing little kids with their scarey stories, just like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and every other totalitarian dictator did with Jews and Capitalists/Imperialists.
Don't turn around
the Kommissar's in town
Truth is Truth
Stifling debate is not the way to arrive at the truth. Scientists who are genuinelt interested in the Science of alleged global warming should welcome open debate because as was earlier stated, it encourages participation in the discussion furthering our knowledge of the topic.
Unfortunately too many scientists have become politically motivated and not objective enough and now some even want to tell you what you can be told. I am an engineer, not a scientist but it seems to me that there is alot more to this than just Americans burning too much fossil fuel and putting too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Ice ages have come and gone and will come again, warming periods have all happened before and they will happen again. The sun "pulsates" on a long term cycle and will increase and decrease it's energy output over time affecting the temperature here on earth. Considering the only reason the earth isn't a frozen block of ice is because of the sun, I'd say that that is the primary source of our heat problem.
Another thought to ponder, if you have been following the whole debate about global warming, the leading gas is not CO2 but H2O!! Moisture in the air traps and holds heat, condensed moisture in the air forms clouds that reflect heat. Everyone of us has experienced both of these phenomena so we know what I've just said is true. CO2 traps so little infrared radiation and in such a narrow band width that to say it or even methane are the real dangers is truly remarkable. I don't know the composition of the atmosphere, but the amount of each of those gases is so minute relative to H2O as to make them insignificant.
Incidentally, the amonut of CO2 produced by humans is only +/- 2-4% of the total produced by the planets other mechanisms. even if we produced ZERO it wouldn't make the slightest difference.
Bottomline is this, Seek the truth, and you will find it.
Matthew Epp P.E.
Wyoming, USA
Truth - bah humbug
Truth is an illusion. The matrix is the reality.
"I don't know the
"I don't know the composition of the atmosphere"
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
You are right about water vapour, and when the earth heats up (for whatever reason), water vapour will increase due to increased evaporation rates, which will cause more warming - it's a positive feedback system. Yes, cloud formation will most likely change and this may lead to more reflection of solar radiation, but whether that balances out, over compensates or under compensates for the water vapours heat trapping ability is for someone with more knowledge than me to work out and answer (gasp! maybe even a scientist!).
Natural, organic carbon dioxide production (allowing for natural fluctuations over time) is negated by carbon capture and storage in sinks like forests and oceans primarily through photosynthesis by plants and phytoplankton which convert it to oxygen and carbohydrates - hence why they call it the carbon cycle.
World wide volcanic activity produces around 1% of the carbon dioxide that humans do. This amount is largely negated by the process of silicate weathering, so even these is basically a neutral cycle.
Incidentally, the amonut of CO2 produced by humans is only +/- 2-4% of the total produced by the planets other mechanisms.
+/-??? How can we produce -2% of the natural CO2 production levels? Are we eating the stuff and taking it out of the atmosphere? You only need one person to light a match and that statement is wrong.
Considering that, if anything, the natural carbon cycle has actually been slightly lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last 10's to 100's of million years, where then is all this extra C02 coming from?
I know of a lazy 6000-7000 million tonnes a year that was never part of the natural cycle that has been pumped up there last year. And for 150 years or so before that there's been plenty too (slightly less as you go back each year of course).
Bottomline is this, get your facts at least partly right, and you will know what the truth might look like when you go to find it.
Water Vapor
The imaginary positive feedback you suggest is unproven. In fact it is very unlikely. If it existed we probably wouldn't be here. The northern hemisphere, where most of the habitable landmass is, undergoes a warming of about 15K every year, and the planet does not self destruct. Periods in the past have been warmer, and the biosphere survived. It is the inevitabe cooling in 10 or 20 years that we should be concerned about and be preparing for.
You should get your facts straight. CO2 has never been demonstrated to drive climate. In the past, it has been a consequence of temperature rise, not a cause, following increases in temperature by an average of 800 years. And don't forget there hasn't been any warming to speak of for 8 years even as CO2 continues to rise. Alarm over CO2 is a dog that just won't hunt. You might as well try to outlaw water, it makes about as much sense. This planet is not a fragile thing. Negative feedbacks dominate or life could not exist. All life evolved during times of higher CO2. It is actually very likely that the Earth has been starved for the essential trace gas for a long time. RELEASE THE CARBON FOR A GREENER EARTH!!!
Mark Whitney
Sandy, Utah
USA
Insightful comment! Gee, the
Insightful comment! Gee, the seasons occur! Wow, those scientists never calculated that one in!!
There is really no question that life will go on as it has for billions of years when the earth was both hotter and cooler than it is at present. What is in question is how habitable it will be for humans at their present levels of population, their current living conditions and levels of society.
Both positive and negative feedbacks drive earth's physical and biological cycles. Things stay in a roughly steady state, absorbing influences of positive or negative feedback systems until a critical point where they move suddenly into a new steady state.
And don't forget there hasn't been any warming to speak of for 8 years even as CO2 continues to rise.
Over the last 30 years Earth's average temperature has risen by around 0.2 degrees celcius per decade.
You're right, the Earth is not a fragile thing, it can take all we throw at it and will bounce back over time - question is, will we as a species, in our present way of life, be around to see it?