?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
"Fair and Unbiased"
angry
nmg

So, Top Gear's man of mystery, the Stig, has unmasked himself in order to sell his book. The BBC is objecting to the publication of the book on the grounds that it breaches contractual and confidentiality agreements.

HarperCollins, the would-be publishers of the book, have issued a press release in which they say that they "are disappointed that the BBC has chosen to spend licence fee payers' money to suppress this book".

Remind me again who owns HarperCollins, and why they might want to make political capital at the BBC's expense in the run-up to the renegotiation of the BBC charter, and possible abolition of the license fee.


  • 1
That graph comes from the Atmospheric Sciences department at UIUC, not from some fucking denialist website. It does also show seasonal variation.

You're right however that it's a global graph (I hadn't noticed that), the ones for just the arctic are even more serious (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png), but still not even close to the ice cap being gone by 2013, even from a 2008 perspective.

My point was that with just ten minuites google work, and a minute amount of knowledge of science that guardian reporter could have saved himself from publishing nonsense.

I would obviously apply scepticism to any anti global warming claims that I saw (though I don't think I've seen any, other than Orlowski in the Reg, who I tend to avoid), as you can maybe tell I'm a very skeptical person!

I'm perfectly well aware of the source. It's widely used on sceptic sites for its misleading nature. "Look, they say 50% of ice is gone but look at this reassuring graph..." It's a common trick of the denialist. Take a valid data source of the WRONG data compare it with a claim about a different area and jump up and down. Really, seeing that graph in an argument about global warming is like seeing a picture with arrows and the caption "shadows in wrong direction" in an argument about nasa funding.

as you can maybe tell I'm a very skeptical person!

Unfortunately you're one of those people I categorise as "thinks they're a skeptic". That is you pick a belief and become instantly gullible to anything that agrees with it. If you did (as you say) do ten minutes of google you would have found graphs which both supported and denied your argument. Then instead of saying "this one supports me" and pasting it in you would have actually been skeptical and worked out which one was appropriate for the case being made. In the case of this argument you would then find which of the graphs was actually appropriate for arctic sea ice (not global or northern hemisphere). Really, to call yourself a skeptic you have to treat all arguments with equal suspicion not pick one and hold onto it.

Your second and third graphs are northern hemisphere sea ice. Exactly the same trick as before and you fell for it a second time (or worse you thought I'd fall for it a second time).

Now go, actually be a skeptic (not just someone picking a side) and find some graphs of ARCTIC sea ice in the SUMMER. Then look at the ones which you agree with and the ones which you disagree with. Look at exactly what each is measuring and work out why they're different (are they measuring different things? Is one good data is one bad?) Then make a judgement about the plausibility of total sea ice collapse by 2013.

I've just done that and I think it's possible but unlikely. It would require the summer ice melt to increase but not by very much.

And really really, is it going to affect how you act vis-a-vis global warming if the arctic sea ice is gone by 2013 or 2025? I don't think that's going to greatly affect my perception of whether it's an important global issue.

You seem to be trying to ascribe beliefs to me that I don't have. I have no problem beliving in global warming, it's scientific consensus, and demonstrated admirably by all three graphs I linked, which come from a respectable geophysics research insituation.

I'm complaingin about the low quality of "science" reporting in the UK papers. I quoted an example of exagerating global warming, you quoted some examples of denying it. Fine. Both are pretty terrible in my optinion.

If you really think the arctic will be ice free in 2015, as predicted by the Guardian article, I'll have £100 on it, and dine out on the proceeeds.

Otherwise, it would be more productive to argue with someone that actually disagrees with you.

If you really think the arctic will be ice free in 2015, as predicted by the Guardian article, I'll have £100 on it, and dine out on the proceeeds.

It's pretty clear from that that you read neither my response nor the Guardian article itself.

  • 1