Quote:

Brulle has been following television news coverage of climate change on the three major network stations -- NBC, ABC and CBS -- for decades. Last year, he found that the number of stories on climate change in the three nightly news broadcasts fell by more than half, from 32 stories in 2010 to 14 stories in 2011, and was way down from the peak of 147 stories in 2007. The amount of air time also dropped by nearly two-thirds, said Brulle, from 90 minutes and 28 seconds in 2010 to 32 minutes and 20 seconds in 2011.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/home-garden-articles/earth-and-you/us-climate-coverage-fell-last-1/59861

We can only hope the weird weather they are experiencing over there might pique the interest of those responsible for the news. Perhaps then it might become news fit to broadcast. I find this trend disturbing to say the least.

Not a bad thing.

A carbon price, affecting all of the legal economies drive chain, will take time and be news in itself.

No worries here!!!

Australia is leading the world, well, apart from Europe!

WE SHOULD BE VERY PROUD OF OURSELVES!!!

Good. Who wants to follow a catastrophic pseudo climate science. If they thought they were just going to scare people into believing their nonsense, then they were obviously very wrong.

Progressiveslol feels it is much better for people to remain ignorant. It's a blessing he would like to share.

1. Climate Change is not necessarily global warming: it can also be global cooling.

2. The world has always experienced climate change.

3. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.


The Cold War, terrorists, climate change ... politics of fear.

A bid to unify people by scaring them with threats to their basic survival?    :-/

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:10am:

Progressiveslol feels it is much better for people to remain ignorant. It's a blessing he would like to share.

progressiveslol is irrelevant/has no say as BUSINESS IS BUSINESS!!

:D :D

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 11:47pm:

Good. Who wants to follow a catastrophic pseudo climate science. If they thought they were just going to scare people into believing their nonsense, then they were obviously very wrong.

Ingnorance is bliss  ... ain't that right progressive?

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

1. Climate Change is not necessarily global warming: it can also be global cooling. 2. The world has always experienced climate change. 3. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. The Cold War, terrorists, climate change ... politics of fear. A bid to unify people by scaring them with threats to their basic survival?    :-/

Business Acumen isn't necessarily about strategically ripping people off/[b]getting-as-many-subsidies-from-the-taxpayer-as-you-can-whilst-privatising-the-resulting-profits ![/b]  ::)  :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?

:D :D :D :D :D  8-)

  ;D  ;)  :)

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

1. Climate Change is not necessarily global warming: it can also be global cooling. 2. The world has always experienced climate change. 3. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. The Cold War, terrorists, climate change ... politics of fear. A bid to unify people by scaring them with threats to their basic survival?    :-/

We should be afraid, Uncle Meat. The world is warming, we're responsible and the consequences are dire. What people forget is that some wolves are real.

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

We should be afraid, ...

It won't do us any good: humans can't change the climate (don't confuse weather with climate).


MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

The world is warming, ...

Quite possibly (although still not enough credible evidence to say for sure, in terms of climate).


MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

... we're responsible ...

Nowhere near enough credible evidence to confirm that hypothesis.  And that's what AGW is: merely an hypothesis.


MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

... and the consequences are dire..

Not necessarily so.  It's merely a prediction, and humans have been adapting to changing conditions for a long time now.


MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

What people forget is that some wolves are real.

Absolutely.  However, not enough evidence exists to suggest that this wolf is real.  Moreover, even if it is real (i.e. the world is warming) humans do not have the capability to change the climate.

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 11:47pm: Good. Who wants to follow a catastrophic pseudo climate science. If they thought they were just going to scare people into believing their nonsense, then they were obviously very wrong. Ingnorance is bliss  ... ain't that right progressive?

I cant tell if you feel blissful, you may have to confirm.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: We should be afraid, ... It won't do us any good: humans can't change the climate (don't confuse weather with climate). MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The world is warming, ... Quite possibly (although still not enough credible evidence to say for sure, in terms of climate). MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: ... we're responsible ... Nowhere near enough credible evidence to confirm that hypothesis.  And that's what AGW is: merely an hypothesis. MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: ... and the consequences are dire.. Not necessarily so.  It's merely a prediction, and humans have been adapting to changing conditions for a long time now. MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: What people forget is that some wolves are real. Absolutely.  However, not enough evidence exists to suggest that this wolf is real.  Moreover, even if it is real (i.e. the world is warming) humans do not have the capability to change the climate.

...you're a shyster!!
  :D :D :D

Business is business I suppose but that doesn't mean I have to buy!!

  :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:37pm:

...you're a shyster!!

Your ability to structure a cohesive argument is outstanding.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: We should be afraid, ... It won't do us any good: humans can't change the climate (don't confuse weather with climate). MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: The world is warming, ... Quite possibly (although still not enough credible evidence to say for sure, in terms of climate). MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: ... we're responsible ... Nowhere near enough credible evidence to confirm that hypothesis.  And that's what AGW is: merely an hypothesis. MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: ... and the consequences are dire.. Not necessarily so.  It's merely a prediction, and humans have been adapting to changing conditions for a long time now. MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:04pm: What people forget is that some wolves are real. Absolutely.  However, not enough evidence exists to suggest that this wolf is real.  Moreover, even if it is real (i.e. the world is warming) humans do not have the capability to change the climate.

Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis. That focusses a lot of attention on the papers that don't. I'd love you to point me to the papers that you believe have stood up to rigorous analysis. I'm yet to find one that gives us an excuse to not act on the warnings that keep and keep on coming.

I'm posting a lengthy video which I hope you might take the time to watch. I apologise for it's length, but it will perhaps help you understand the position I have taken and why I believe we must act now to reduce atmospheric CO2.

Barry Bickmore is Associate Professor of Geological Sciences at Brigham Young University. His research specialties are low-temperature geochemistry and geoscience education. In this presentation, he discusses how he moved from being a climate change "skeptic" to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. He then discusses how it is that people like him can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U&sns=em

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis.

That's right.

Most climate scientists support the hypothesis.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 1:03pm: Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis. That's right. Most climate scientists support the hypothesis.

Believing that smoking causes cancer is a hypothesis does not protect you from the dangers of smoking. It is a hypothesis that I believe has been proven through multiple lines of independent evidence. The physics, I believe, is indisputable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHhLcoPT9KM&sns=em

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 1:14pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 1:03pm: Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis. That's right. Most climate scientists support the hypothesis. Believing that smoking causes cancer is a hypothesis does not protect you from the dangers of smoking. It is a hypothesis that I believe has been proven through multiple lines of independent evidence. The physics I believe is indisputable.

I agree.

However, the same can not be said for AGW. 

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 1:14pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 1:03pm: Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis. That's right. Most climate scientists support the hypothesis. Believing that smoking causes cancer is a hypothesis does not protect you from the dangers of smoking. It is a hypothesis that I believe has been proven through multiple lines of independent evidence. The physics I believe is indisputable.

Bad example since "smoking causes cancer" is an outright lie put out by govts and media propaganda and climate science is an actual science which we can actually observe.

SOB

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 1:52pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 1:14pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 1:03pm: Your conclusion that there is not enough evidence to support anthropogenic warming is not the conclusion of the vast bulk of climate scientists. I think it's something like 97% of published climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis. That's right. Most climate scientists support the hypothesis. Believing that smoking causes cancer is a hypothesis does not protect you from the dangers of smoking. It is a hypothesis that I believe has been proven through multiple lines of independent evidence. The physics I believe is indisputable. I agree. However, the same can not be said for AGW.

The physics behind AGW is very clear.

Any video that says there is not much of a debate going on or there is not as much support for the skeptic view in climate science, is obviously not worth watching. It was a bit hard to go past the 3 minute mark with the stupid points put up on the screeen. It sounded like the good Dr was looking at the world through a 5 year olds eyes.

I dont know how good this list is, but it is a start.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

The physics behind AGW is very clear.

Yes.  The evidence is not though.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 2:02pm: The physics behind AGW is very clear. Yes.  The evidence is not though.

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

muso wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 2:19pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 2:02pm: The physics behind AGW is very clear. Yes.  The evidence is not though. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

Oh dear. 

Tree rings, ice cores, modelling, predictions, guesstimates ...

Clear as mud.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:11pm:

Any video that says there is not much of a debate going on or there is not as much support for the skeptic view in climate science, is obviously not worth watching. It was a bit hard to go past the 3 minute mark with the stupid points put up on the screeen. It sounded like the good Dr was looking at the world through a 5 year olds eyes. I dont know how good this list is, but it is a start. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

The 97% figure comes from two independent studies. One study surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Another study directly asked earth scientists the following question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes, 2% were unsure, only 1% said no (Doran 2009).

The reality is that there is not much debate going on. How can you ever expect to learn the truth when you turn off the moment someone offers a different perspective to your world view. Ironically, if you had continued watching the video you would have found out it specifically refers to the list you have linked in your post.

The list of 900 is a very dodgy list. But rather than picking apart the list it is far quicker to simply put that number into perspective. One rough estimate is that there are about 190,000 papers on climate change. That puts us somewhere in the vicinity of 0.5%, so not even 1%.

MOTR wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 8:49pm:

The reality is that there is not much debate going on.

And that's the whole problem.

AGW disciples say the science is in, and anyone who disagrees is a "denier"

The AGW hypothesis may be correct, however, at this stage it doesn't have enough credible evidence to back it up.

Therefore, we need to continue the debate.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:56pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 8:49pm: The reality is that there is not much debate going on. And that's the whole problem. AGW disciples say the science is in, and anyone who disagrees is a "denier" The AGW hypothesis may be correct, however, at this stage it doesn't have enough credible evidence to back it up. Therefore, we need to continue the debate.

That's the way science works, Uncle Meat.  The debate will always continue. 97% of climate scientists believe there is already enough evidence to form a positive conclusion about AGW,  only 2% are unsure and 1% outright disagree. When the consequences of not acting are so dire it is irrational to postpone action until we can convince everyone there is absolute proof.

Well if the US does not believe in climate change there is no question, it must be a hoax!

More hand me down delusion for the flock of sheep so tight no member steps out lockstep with the flock even over international distances. Cyborg sheep of BEEP BOOP.

We import so much quality thinking from that rotting right wing cesspit we might as well scoop our own brains out and have American brains implanted.

On a more serious less frothing at the mouth note it is just the short attention span of people so lucky they don't get engrossed in this rotten politics stuff.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 6:10pm:

muso wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 5:30pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 2:19pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 2:02pm: The physics behind AGW is very clear. Yes.  The evidence is not though. I don't see how it could be any clearer. Oh dear.  Tree rings, ice cores, modelling, predictions, guesstimates ... Clear as mud.

Finding economically viable deposits of minerals is hardly an exact science either! But they still manage to do it!!

  :D :D :D :D  :o