tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post1030284637848256725..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: The Fundamentals Haven't ChangedMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-65796232677829929692010-02-18T19:54:54.589-08:002010-02-18T19:54:54.589-08:00Tom, if the news is "great swaths of the pres...Tom, if the news is "great swaths of the press have been reporting malicious lies as truth", yeah. But that's not about the IPCC.<br /><br />The problems of the IPCC are real enough. It's remarkable that such an unprecedented organization functions as well as it does. But the whole operation is bound to run into snags as it becomes something of a tradition.<br /><br />But the IPCC's issues are tiny compared to the real problems revealed by the recent episodes of attacks on climate science, and the press would do much better to turn its eye on itself, the political environment, and the public attitude.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-14126530587474241632010-02-18T19:20:45.045-08:002010-02-18T19:20:45.045-08:00Tom_ When does "going where the full story le...Tom_ When does "going where the full story leads" get us news headlines about the organized deception that is climate change "skepticism." When do we get to read "previously discredited weatherman Anthony Watts" as part of a news report? When is a journalist going to track down the time stamps on attacks on climate scientists and realize that the news reports are almost instantly followed by posts of the denier talking points on global comments boards? When do I get to see the headline: "Climate change deniers deliberately misquote Phil Jones" anywhere but a blog? <br /><br />All sides of this issue are not equal. One side is held to a standard of letter perfect accuracy and the other side is allowed pretty much any form of deception they choose to promote. Only the IPCC and it's supporters are held to any standard of objective truth. <br /><br />If newspapers are getting thin and losing readers it may be because they've lost ethical standards and relevance. I grew up reading two papers every day and three often; I no longer take a paper. There's no point to it.Pangolinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18369503994505817789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-30171897919610461942010-02-18T12:52:35.686-08:002010-02-18T12:52:35.686-08:00By referring to me, Michael, just what are you say...By referring to me, Michael, just what are you saying? That journalists here should fail to do their jobs — which is reporting the news and trying to help readers understand it? Are you saying that you're happy with what has been written and you see no room for responsible journalism that can explain what science is really saying? Rather than leaving snide little hints in your blog, why don't you come out and say what you really believe?<br /><br />For the record, I love Charlie's Petit's quote. I agree with every word. But you conveniently ignored other important things that he wrote (not to mention all of my own efforts to set the record straight on the science), including <a href="http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2010/01/27/ipcc-under-fire-in-india-europe-press-not-all-by-climate-change-skeptics-us-reporters-largely-quiet/" rel="nofollow">this posting</a> about the lack of coverage here of the IPCC controversy, in which he notes that "in the US press lately one finds practically nothing aside from non-science-savvy columnists . . . But one would expect a bit more on this side of the oceans . . ." <br /><br />Although he didn't say it strongly as I did, Charlie clearly thinks the U.S. press was not paying enough attention to a story that is newsworthy whether you like it or not. And just because I and many other science journalists believe this story should be covered doesn't mean that we are advocating for shoddy journalism. All I called for was for journalists here to follow the story wherever it leads. If it leads to a conclusion that the accusations have been blown up all out of proportion, then that is the story. <br /><br />But right now, all Americans are getting is Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other bloviators of their ilk who are filling the vacuum left by the absence of responsible journalism. Are you actually saying that you would like to cede the playing field to them? Or that if the press ignores the story it will just go away. If you believe that you are more naive than I thought.Tom Yulsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10275951856622997605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77162753141058865692010-02-18T08:49:41.218-08:002010-02-18T08:49:41.218-08:00Re: Galileo
I think I already posted somewhere - ...Re: Galileo<br /><br />I think I already posted somewhere - maybe even here - <i>eppure riscalda</i> which is the climate change version of Galileo's <i>"eppur si muove"</i><br /><br />Apologies to any Italians if Google translator didn't get <i>"and yet still it warms"</i> right...Nick Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05360924308743466075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63516541301760514242010-02-18T00:30:15.788-08:002010-02-18T00:30:15.788-08:00The most fundamental fact is that good science is ...The most fundamental fact is that good science is observation of the natural world. Global warming and climate change are things that are <i>observed</i> by scientists. It seemingly cannot be reconciled by a certain mindset that believes that science <i>creates</i> things such as computers. <br /><br />I think that even when climate change is irrefutable on the ground there will be a cadre that believes that it was created by those pesky scientists. No explanation that what we are doing is observing will suffice. <br /><br />The fundamentals haven't changed since Galileo perhaps.Pangolinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18369503994505817789noreply@blogger.com